Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 June 10

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< June 9
June 11 >

June 10

Template:Great Recession sidebar

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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:Great Recession series. ✗plicit 23:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Great Recession sidebar with Template:Great Recession series.
Covers the same topics and an additional 8 links shouldn't cause too much grief in the merge target. Izno (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nomination ~
OneRandomBrit (talk) 11:08, 12 June 2023 (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:Sotetsu and Tokyu Shin Yokohama Lines

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't deprecate navigation templates. If this should be replaced with Template:Tokyu Shin-yokohama Line then it should be replaced and deleted. If it shouldn't, then the deprecation notice should be removed. Gonnym (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2023 (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 medical intervention

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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:Infobox medical intervention. Izno (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

Template:Infobox medical intervention (new)
.
Procedural nomination as this was added to Category:Deprecated templates. If this is indeed deprecated and should be replaced (unclear why it couldn't be just modified) then it should have a proper discussion. The new template should also use the original name and not "(new)". Gonnym (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2023 (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:Secretariat of the Communist Party of Vietnam ordinal category

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused category template. Also does not work as the "/core" sub template does not exist. Gonnym (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym and WikiCleanerMan: Hi! I am the creator of this template. I wanted to create a template similar to Template:Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam ordinal category. I, however, have a problem. The Communist had a different name until 1976 and I never found how to navigate from that. For the problem see Category:4th Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam. It is red for the 3rd Politburo but that's because the party had a different name: Category:3rd Politburo of the Workers' Party of Vietnam.
Do any of you know how to fix it? Because if you do we don't need to delete it. If so that would be great since then I could create similar templates for the Yugoslav, Chinese, Soviet and ruling communist counterparts.--TheUzbek (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the only thing you need is navigation then {{
Navseasoncats}} is what you want for both templates. Gonnym (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@Gonnym: I may be stupid, but using that template I don't get how I'll fix the problem. Because ut would still be red at Category:4th Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam since the 3rd category is titled Workers' Party and not Communist Party. Or am I wrong? --TheUzbek (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At
Template:Navseasoncats/doc#Work-arounds it explains what to do if the name changes. Basically you create category redirects with the names that are needed for the 3rd and 4th links to work. Gonnym (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@Gonnym: Lovely, I understand it now! Thank you very much :) --TheUzbek (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2023 (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:Search for horizontal expanded

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 userfy. Izno (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Template:Talk header has "find sources" links. If any of these links are missing from there and needed, that should probably be brought up at that template. There are other templates in this set which are used and which should also probably be replaced with the talk header. Gonnym (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2023 (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:Scrolling TOC

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused ToC template. Unclear if this has any future usage with the recent changes to the ToC. Gonnym (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2023 (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:Section of

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created and unused. Unclear what usage this has. Gonnym (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2023 (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:Unconfirmed

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barely used and a duplicate of Template:Speculation. Gonnym (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems both article usages are inline usages and should use Template:Speculation inline instead. Gonnym (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2023 (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 Clementine (The Walking Dead)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An infobox template created for a single character and which was removed from the article a few minutes later. This isn't an appropriate use of an infobox template. Gonnym (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2023 (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
).

Platform Layout templates

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 11:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion per the extensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Platform layouts, again: June 2023, in which a number of users significantly opposed templates of this style and design. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2023 (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
).

Sonic the Hedgehog navigation boxes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 keep. Izno (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

Template:Sonic the Hedgehog characters, Template:Sonic the Hedgehog in other media and Template:Unofficial Sonic the Hedgehog media with Template:Sonic the Hedgehog
.

The original reason for splitting the navigation boxes (see this and this) seems to be that the box is too large and to prevent bloat. However the splitted boxes posed other problems that would hurt navigation. I've started a Draft template of the merged navbox to test how it can work better if Sonic the Hedgehog articles links were merged back.

The summary of problems with the templates in the current split state:

  1. The templates were separated by the range of topics, and each of the sub-template were named in the way that would hinder potential expansion. E.g. expanding
    Template:Sonic the Hedgehog characters
    to cover every article about Sonic the Hedgehog universe (fictional locations, items etc. in addition to characters).
  2. Some of Sonic the Hedgehog "video game", "character" and "other media" topics cross-reference each other, and yet the wikilinks to the articles were forced to separate because of the split template structure, which could hurt users find relevant topics as well. Examples: (a) Shadow the Hedgehog (video game) features the title character, and it is often that a reader would look for the game after the character and vice versa, and (b) Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric is a video game based on Sonic Boom (TV series), and readers would like to navigate between each other article through the navigation box. The current split structure required the reader to jump two hyperlinks instead of one if using the navbox.
  3. Making wikilinks to
    List of unofficial Sonic media on the top of the main Sonic navbox (Template:Sonic the Hedgehog) is not sufficient for the need to navigate to a particular character or a particular medium (not with a single hyperlink jump). The current design of Template:Sonic the Hedgehog
    works with a Fandom site, but doesn't work well with Sonic articles in Wikipedia.

My opinion is that the split was badly done in the first place. While I can see the merit of Template:Unofficial Sonic the Hedgehog media being separated from other Sonic article links, the other 3 navboxes should be merged together. Explorer09 (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(The reasons was updated to summarize the points, as well as provide a link to the template draft for potential future improvement to the merged template.) Explorer09 (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nomination. More navboxes are not the solution when only one can do. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the main template is massive, and only going to get larger. It's overwhelming and difficult to keep readable as is. Sergecross73 msg me 01:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I got the merged template idea from a similar video game template Template:Street Fighter, there the collapsible boxes worked pretty well. Explorer09 (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've maintained the Sonic template since well before it was split up for readability. This wasn't some flippant bold move, we had discussions and found a consensus to split. Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - for as long as this series goes on, the main template will just get bigger. Instead, links to the rest of the navboxes at the top of the "main" one should do. Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think the template being "too big" is a good reason to split. Besides, the current way of splitting the boxes makes it awful to navigate between Sonic topics. If you are comparing this to Mario franchise templates, the latter are separated by the sub-series (or by game genre), not by range of topics. E.g. Template:Super Mario even lists the movies and TV adaptations despite the template is mainly about video games. With the Sonic templates in the current state, I would be unable to relate a TV adaptation from a video game. The "related games" section is also messy: what determines that a related game be listed under Template:Sonic the Hedgehog or Template:Unofficial Sonic the Hedgehog media? The criteria are not clear cut. Explorer09 (talk) 07:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We split the template for the precise reason that it was getting too big to navigate comfortably. It's only going to get bigger and bigger as time goes on, and it's not unlike how the Template:Mario franchise has a bunch of sub-templates to avoid bloat. JOEBRO64 13:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I've seen even bigger templates in Wikipedia, e.g. Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine, and yet few people complain about the size of it being "too big to navigate"? And the size reason was exactly why Template:Navbox with collapsible groups is available for use. Explorer09 (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. The split state of the templates is now preventing me from improving the each of the templates further, so I started a Draft template here for the merged navbox. I wanted to improve the box to aid navigation for the readers, which would concern things other than the size of the box. The main purpose of the navboxes are to aid readers find related topics of an article, and the relations of articles are what counts. By the way, your way of splitting the templates (by range of topics) works in a Fandom site -- it's just not ideal for Wikipedia. Explorer09 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please assume good faith. Joe and I have maintained these templates for ages, and we have done so in the name of readability and navigation. We just have different opinions than you on how to achieve that. Sergecross73 msg me 19:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sergecross73
    1. You didn't show any argument besides the size of the template, and that argument is the one I disagree with (size is not an issue for any Wikipedia page)
    2. My question is whether splitting the templates would actually benefit the reader in terms of navigating related topics. And I see no arguments on this perspective.
    3. Splitting the templates would make sense if there are Sonic the Hedgehog articles distant from other Sonic the Hedgehog topics in terms of relations. But I don't think that's the case here (examples are given above when a "video game" and "character" articles relate together, and a "video game" and "other media" articles relate together).
    4. Because the fragmented state of the templates hinders my processes of further improving them, I chose to make a bold edit (WP:BOLD) before trying a lengthy discussion just to decide whether the pages should be merged. The best way to show a merged proposal was just make the edit right away (so other people can see how the merged version would work better). Explorer09 (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your entire argument operates on the assumption that SIZESPLITs are invalid...and they're not. They're common place. For example, decade spanning musical artists often have separate templates for singles and albums when they've got a lot of each. Sergecross73 msg me 10:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there example templates of what you are talking about? Explorer09 (talk) 05:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, lots of long-running artists have their template split out to a separate one for singles - Whitney Houston, Garth Brooks, Taylor Swift, Linkin Park, etc etc. It's common practice. Sergecross73 msg me 17:30, 16 June 2023 (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
).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_10&oldid=1160654795"