Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 July 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 28
July 30 >

July 29

[edit]

Template:Iw2

[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 after replacing with {{ill}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates {{interlanguage link}}, unmaintained and more or less unused (no article-space uses, only 7 transclusions). Primefac (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. {{Iw2}} does not duplicate {{interlanguage link}}. Compare
{{ill|Hanning Schröder|de}} Hanning Schröder
with
{{iw2|Hanning Schröder|Hans Schröder|de}} {{iw2|Hanning Schröder|Hans Schröder|de}}
— Yuri V. (t•c) 17:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Yuri V., what is the intention of your example above? We should not be linking to disambiguation pages in articles. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{iw2}} does not duplicate {{interlanguage link}}
  1. Indeed, compare {{ill|Hanning Schröder|de}} and [[Hanning Schröder]], they identical, Hanning Schröder = Hanning Schröder. On the contrary, {{iw2|Hanning Schröder||de}} {{iw2|Hanning Schröder|de}} we see, that article was translated, and remove iw2 to [[ ]].
  2. The template {{iw2}}, as [[article|any necessary text]], allows to write any necessary text, e.g. {{iw2|Fedir Vovk (disambig)|any text|uk|Федір Вовк}} {{iw2|Fedir Vovk (disambig)|any text|uk|Федір Вовк}}, so, after translation, appropriate bot removes iw2 and obtains [[Fedir Vovk (disambig)|any text]] any text.
— Yuri V. (t•c) 20:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
And which bot does this? Primefac (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BunykBot, see example 1, example 2, example 3, ... — Yuri V. (t•c) 02:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Does that bot run on en.wiki? Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not, nor is it approved to run here. Primefac (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. {{interlanguage link}} hasn't at least one possibility of {{iw2}}.
Indeed, compare {{ill|Fedir Vovk|de|Fedir Wowk}} and [[Fedir Vovk]], they identical, Fedir Vovk = Fedir Vovk. On the contrary, {{iw2|Fedir Vovk||de|Fedir Wowk}} {{iw2|Fedir Vovk|de|Fedir Wowk}} we see, that article was translated, and remove iw2 to [[ ]].
— Yuri V. (t•c) 19:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Duplicate oppose !vote struck. Primefac (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not seeing why we need to highlight a wikilink if the wikilink exists. Primefac (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "highlight a wikilink" isn't principal, I remove it. The main feature is checking #ifexist: {{{1|}}} and a message "the article is translated", see pop-up ●. — Yuri V. (t•c) 16:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
But that's my point - if the article exists on enWiki, why do we need some sort of special "this has now been created" notice? If the page has been created, then it should show up as just a regular wikilink (which is what {{ill}} does) until it can be un-transcluded. Primefac (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More than ten years I wrote "template:iw2" on my page user:Yuri V. as the most nesessary template for me. This template is used on approximately 108,000 pages of ukwiki, 327,000 pages of ruwiki etc. I don't see or understand any harm from this template may be in enwiki.
P. S. Now there are exist uk:template:link-interwiki and pl:template:link-interwiki, they are better, much stronger and more comfortable than both {{iw2}} and {{interlanguage link}}. I'm trying to adapt them to enwiki instead of iw2. — Yuri V. (t•c) 16:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
What other projects do doesn't affect us. We have an interwiki template, {{ill}}, which is far superior to this template. I'm not saying that your efforts were not done in good faith, or that the template wasn't at one point useful (or is currently useful on other projects) but enWiki does not need it, which is why I am suggesting that it be replaced with (i.e. redirected to) {{ill}}. Primefac (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but {{ill}} can't replace {{iw2}}. Only {{uk:link-interwiki}} is superior both {{ill}} and {{iw2}}. — Yuri V. (t•c) 17:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
It's the last time I'll say it, but yes, it very much can, and a template on a foreign language project cannot be used here because it's, well, not here. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 10 August 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:Fourteenth Doctor stories

[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 no consensus. Izno (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Fourteenth Doctor stories with Template:Tenth Doctor stories.
The template is unnecessary given that the three episodes plus specials page all link to each other through inline links and with {{Doctor Who episodes|N13b}}. Though with the inclusion of The Power of the Doctor a merger was proposed with Template:Tenth Doctor stories. As the two incarantions are pretty linked and both played by David Tennant. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: They are still two distinct incarnations. The point about inline links is arguably a non-issue (seeing as navboxes are, y'know, there for ease of navigation so people don't need to dig around the article for said inline links). Granted, the similarity between this and {{Doctor Who episodes|N13b}} is more of a concern. However, I'd argue that keeping these templates separate would be better for futureproofing (in case any more notable 14th doctor content gets made), better for organization (as the content for each incarnation is categorized away from the other incarnation's content), and a bit more user-friendly (as the 14's content won't get buried under the mountain of 10's content, and it avoids the potential ugliness of splitting one navbox between two incarnations which itself is likely to be a bit of an organizational headache). 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 10:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I second the above. While there isn't much content in the Fourteenth Doctor's box so thus far (the 3 episodes are listed in other navigational boxes so I get the concern), but more content might come along in the future. Bigwhofan (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Update an article for Desination Skarro was made. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 09:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 16:02, 29 July 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.

Taiwan political party templates

[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. Izno (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This family of templates contains just wikilinks, maybe with an icon (mostly used for decoration in violation of MOS:ICON). Over the last few years we've been moving away from the "one template for every version of X" system (be it for political parties, national sports, etc) in order to allow for easier updating and centralised coding. This is also a good example of "text stored in a template". Primefac (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I looked at most of these templates and several transclusion cases. I'm not seeing a violation of MOS:ICON, but I agree that this is a lot of templates for what could be easily accomplished with a single template taking a single parameter (and maybe an optional boolean controlling icon display). I'm thinking combine and replace, although I'm not presently volunteering to do the work, since I've been pretty busy and will almost certainly forget. Folly Mox (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree that simple links should not be hosted in a template. There is just no reason for that. If such a thing is actually valid, then there probably should be a template for every single concept. In reality, writing New Power Party or {{New Power Party}} is no different and if {{NPP}} is valid as a redirect, then it would have been valid as redirect, which NPP is not. This just seems to bypass the basic system of how links work here. Other than that, we already have a module that acts as database for political party names and colors. So that should already take care of this. Regarding the icons, I also agree, but for some reason during the merge a few years back, we left the group of templates with icons out of it. So if this passes, we should take care of the other templates in Category:Political party name templates (which also includes US templates like Template:GOP, which is exactly the same). Gonnym (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 16:02, 29 July 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:Deomyinae

[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. Primefac (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This template is unnecessary as we can always navigate the taxonomy via the taxonomic infoboxes. And now we have to maintain the taxonomy in 3 different places: the infoboxes, the genus articles (which list the species), and navigation templates like this. Why do we need such redundant systems that just create more work? Nosferattus (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a standard navbox that is used in many articles. Clearly useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is my preference, as I share concerns about keeping redundant information up-to-date across multiple pages. However, I don't understand why this template was singled out over everything else in Category:Mammal species templates and it's subcategories. Many (but not all) mammal species have navboxes. Very few other organisms have navboxes like mammals do. If I was going to single out one mammal species navbox for deletion it would be {{Murinae (Others)}}. The subfamily Murinae is split across 10 navboxes, why not just make one (massive) navbox for the subfamily? And putting two genera in the "Others" navbox is completely unintuitive for readers when the other navboxes are arranged by parts of the alphabet. Plantdrew (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 16:01, 29 July 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:Accordionists by nationality and century category header

[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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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|{{PAGENAME}}}}, 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)[reply]

Lean oppose for 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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [1]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

information 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)[reply]
Update per below point. Primefac (talk) 13:47, 4 September 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.

Module:Location map/data/Manila

[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 Manila, keep City. Izno (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Module:Location map/data/Manila with Module:Location map/data/Philippines City of Manila.
The module uses a low resolution map based on probably outdated OpenStreetMap data. The module can be redirected to Module:Location map/data/Philippines City of Manila (preferred) or Module:Location map/data/Metro Manila. Sanglahi86 (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just finished revising all articles that transcluded the Module:Location map/data/Manila to use the Philippines City of Manila and/or Metro Manila pushpin maps. There are currently no remaining articles. Thus, I propose Module:Location map/data/Manila be redirected to Module:Location map/data/Philippines City of Manila. Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 15:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems there isn't anything to merge here, so just delete or redirect to the module used. Gonnym (talk) 16:25, 8 August 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:Verification requested

[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 after subst/replacement. Primefac (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this template is completely redundant nowadays. It seems that it was created to handle cross-wiki rename requests or something back in Ye Olde Days before Single-User Login was invented (checking if a user who wanted username X was the same as the user with username X on the other language wiki). However, with SUL now being a thing, this template seemingly hasn't been used since 2010 (no transclusions since december 2010), so it should be safe to subst out all 5 remaining uses of this and then delete this template (along with its redirect, {{ver}}) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 10:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 15:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subst usages and delete. The process hasn't been in need for over a decade and this simple link template isn't something we need to keep around forever. Gonnym (talk) 16:23, 8 August 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.

Module:Citation

[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 after history merging. Primefac (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2018 TfD says that "a soft redirect in a module is not possible". That's not true anymore. require('Module:Module wikitext')._addText('{{soft redirect|Module:Citation/CS1}}') would do exactly that. I'm not saying the closer made a mistake; Module:Module wikitext was created two years after the TfD, but that doesn't mean we can't reevaluate the close since things have changed now. Nickps (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Trappist the monk since their comment on RfD brought the module to my attention. Nickps (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, that require() doesn't work. I don't know why and I'm not going to take the time to figure it out. Currently, if Module:Citation is invoked you get:
{{#invoke:Citation|citation}}
Lua error in Module:Citation at line 1: This module is retained for historical and structural reasons; consider using Module:Citation/CS1..
I think that error message appropriate. Readers should never see it but editors will if they are doing something that they ought not do (and are paying attention ...).
If we want to 'soft redirect' Module:Citation can't we just add {{soft redirect|Module:Citation/CS1}} to someplace in Module:Citation/doc and be done?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That require doesn't work because it just redirects the page. If you add a second line that says return require [[Module:Citation/CS1]] under it, then the module will be functional too. Nickps (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited Module:Sandbox/Nickps to demonstrate. {{#invoke:Sandbox/Nickps|citation}} gives Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150: attempt to concatenate a nil value. which doesn't look too promising at first but it's the same error as {{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation}}: Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150: attempt to concatenate a nil value. which means the redirect is working. Nickps (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just pushed the change to Module:Citation directly as a proof of concept. It can always be reverted later. Nickps (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is it that I am not understanding? You get the Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150 error message because of line 2 at Module:Citation (permalink). It is not obvious that line 1 (permalink) is doing anything that we want. If, as WP:SOFTREDIR says, Soft redirects differ in that they leave the reader on the redirect page that isn't happening because line 2 is pretty much the equivalent of a hard redirect. So tell me, what it is that you are attempting to accomplish with your edit? That edit puts the soft redirect outside of the module documentation. Wouldn't it be better to add {{soft redirect}} to the ~/doc page?
Part of my misunderstanding was that I expected an invoke of Module:Citation to do nothing but put up a soft redirect annotation and halt as WP:SOFTREDIR sort of suggests that it should. The soft redirect annotation is for direct wikilinks ([[Module:Citation]] → Module:Citation). That being the case, I see no benefit to be gained by using the module to create the soft redirect annotation when the same can be accomplished by including {{soft redirect}} in the ~/doc page.
Just what am I missing?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm confused. If you open Module:Citation you're left at the redirect page. So by the definition you provide, that's a soft redirect. I don't see how a redirect being soft or hard has anything to do with what it does when transcluded. Now, we could move the soft redirect template to the documentation page, although that would require changing the second line (then only line) to return require('Module:Citation/CS1') to avoid creating a hard redirect. Or, we could avoid this entire conversation and go with Pppery's suggestion of making a hard redirect. Nickps (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it must be a redirect, let it be a hard redirect or (my preference) leave it as it was and delete {{Citation/lua}} as unused/unnecessary. And then let us be done with this.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on a hard redirect being better than a soft one. Nickps (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to the previous TfD. Nickps (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 15:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History merge and delete per Izno. A page move should follow. Having this be a sub-page of a "dead" module has always seemed strange to me. Gonnym (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having it be a subpage of a redlink is no better. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then we move it to a proper location. Just because something has been like this forever, doesn't mean we can't change it. We've recently untangled the Module:Language mess. Gonnym (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Module:Citation/CS1 (Q15403807), there are about 300 wikipedia and other projects that use Module:Citation/CS1 (and its associates) (for Module:lang, about half that – see Module:Lang (Q42895737)). It is difficult enough for those who keep synched with en.wiki's ~/CS1 (translations, their own special tweaks, etc) and worse for those who don't keep up. Are we sure that we want to add to their burden (and editors at WT:CS1 who will be playing the role of tech support) by moving everything someplace else? I wouldn't. Acknowledge that Module:Citation is an aberration and get on with more important stuff.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can sort out whether the CS1 module has a red link for a parent after we sort out whether to make the parent a red link (my opinion: it's not a big deal in the slightest whether the parent of a subpage exists from this point of view). Izno (talk) 00:49, 16 August 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:Css

[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. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template with no transclusions that has been marked as deprecated since 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 15:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This doesn't seem to be used based on incoming links. Gonnym (talk) 16:19, 8 August 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:Presidency of Jimmy Carter

[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 redirect to Template:Jimmy Carter. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication of Template:Jimmy Carter. All links here are featured on Carter's main navbox. I can understand the 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. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Discussion of the template and other presidency vs. president biography templates is currently ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents#Presidency Navigation Templates vs. Biography Navigation Templates. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WikiCleanerMan and Randy Kryn: As I've noted in the discussion at the WikiProject United States Presidents talk page, I believe there are serious content policy issues with the how the biography templates of U.S. presidents were before the creation of the separate navigation templates for their presidencies, specifically the WP:UNDUE and WP:NAVBOX policies. Contrary to the comments made by User:Randy Kryn, I am not including every bill signed into law by a president during a presidential administration and only the ones that have Wikipedia articles. If a law, executive order, regulation, or other public policy has a Wikipedia article that meets the requirements of the general notability policy (WP:N) and is related to a particular presidential administration, then that should be major enough for inclusion in a navigation template about the presidential administration because the WP:NAVBOX and WP:UNDUE policies explicitly require editors to not make judgments that certain topics related to a broader topic have greater importance than others when including them in a navigation template. In the absence of subject-specific notability guidelines, and if a law, executive order, regulation, or public policy does not meet the requirements of WP:N, it is not supposed to have a Wikipedia article in the first place.
    Likewise, speeches and foreign policy summits that do not meet the requirements of WP:EVENT are not supposed to have Wikipedia articles either since they are events under the terms of that guideline. Before I created the separate template, there were only a selection of topics related to a presidential administration in the biography templates with a greater focus of on foreign policy, state of the union addresses and other speeches, presidential inaugurations and transitions, and judicial appointments rather than domestic and economic policies. Criteria 4 of the WP:NAVBOX policy for good navigation templates requires that there that is a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template exist, and not every President of United States (POTUS) has a separate articles article about their presidency (i.e. William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and James A. Garfield). WP:NAVBOX also suggests that navigation templates are better for small and well-defined groups of articles, which is why the I'd argue that only a link to the presidency article should be included in a biography template for a POTUS should be included, and all other articles related to a presidency should be split into a separate template about the presidency. This would preclude duplication, and there wasn't any duplication until User:Randy Kryn reverted the templates to how they were before the Template:Presidency of Jimmy Carter navbox was created. WP:NAVBOX also does not ban templates with large numbers of links. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is an unneeded duplicate navbox of entries already present on the main Jimmy Carter nabox, and other duplicate navboxes have been created and entries removed (but reverted) from the individual navboxes. And yes, scores if not hundreds of tangential additions where the president is not mentioned in the article could be trimmed from presidential navboxes, which should not include every law that the president signed but only those which they initiated and/or worked to pass and were then semi-identified with them (LBJ's Voting Rights Act, FDR's New Deal legislation, etc.). This does not need additional discussion elsewhere, an obvious duplication of existing material. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This can be solved easily..., just add an expandable section for 'Presidency' on the very few oversized navboxes in the style of {{John Paul II}} (but without multiple expanded sections, just one would do). This would solve everyone's concern, and would keep the rest of the links about the subject - Wikipedia's map of the topic - in the same navbox. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any ideas?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 15:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, my idea just above. Many navboxes include collapsed sections. There is no reason, when this option exists, to separate a president's record from the rest of their Wikipedia map. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That can be an alterative, but people are adding too many articles as mentioned above, but this template has to go. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree, it is both a duplicate navbox and becoming a magnet for tangential entries. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a week since the last relist, this template still meets the merit of deletion. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As do several others created in such a way which have the same issues. One problem is that this Carter presidency navbox was put in place of the actual {{Jimmy Carter}} navbox which has to be returned to the articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or split, but do not keep this duplication. Gonnym (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same situation has occurred with the navboxes of Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and others. It seems likely that each of the pages of presidential entrants of all these navboxes will have to be fixed. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:51, 8 August 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:Senegalese Tirailleurs

[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 userfy until more bluelinks are present. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contains only one link outside of the title navbox. All are red links to this Wikipedia. With the rest being external links to the French Wikipedia. No navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion I will be using the template to create new articles about these neglected colonial units. +JMJ+ (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should create articles before the navbox. Navboxes are meant to link articles that exist not to be created down the line. If you want to work on this, then this should be userfyed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would I "userfy" it? +JMJ+ (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could copy it to your WP:SANDBOX --woodensuperman 15:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At the very least it needs trimming so that the WP:EXISTING articles aren't lost amongst a sea of redlinks and external links to the French Wikipedia (P.S. No external links in navboxes). --woodensuperman 15:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 15:49, 29 July 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:Rft

[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. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to originally suggest merging these two templates together, but after looking at the almost-zero transclusion count I realise that neither of them are really necessary; if a discussion gets moved to another location, we can easily use {{moved}} or type out "discussion moved to <link>", and if someone changes something (e.g. a signature) they can just... say so? It's not a bad idea but in practice it doesn't seem to have much use. Primefac (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 15:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replace the single transclusion of {{Rft}} with {{moved}} and delete. Replace {{Refactored}} with the full sig and delete. Not sure why this is even needed. Gonnym (talk) 16:14, 8 August 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_July_29&oldid=1245531934"