Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 October 3

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) 17:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Summarize section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Overly detailed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Summarize section with Template:Overly detailed.
Semi-procedural re-nomination following a previous discussion; an emerging trend was to merge these two templates, but there was not enough discussion and input for a solid consensus. Primefac (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I updated the text to be more inclusive of both templates. - jc37 15:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: This is effectively duplicative of the overly detailed template. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per previous support. Izno (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as the text is essentially the same, and {{Overly detailed}} has a section parameter, making {{Summarize section}} not necessary. ~~2NumForIce (^speak|_edits) 19:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per everyone above. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to the closer: it appears that {{Summarize section}} should be replaced by {{Overly detailed|section}}, since the former applies only to sections and the merge target can also apply to entire articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and per the comment right above mine. DFlhb (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge – As above. Toadette ^{(let's chat together)} 14:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as merge, per discussion at Template talk:Overly detailed#Wording changes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 23:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - the discussion above was based upon a version of the text in the template, which I added due to
  NPOV. - jc37 00:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Wrapperify Template:Summarize section, without changing the base template. Now that we've got the original wordings back, it's clear that {{summarize section}} is an amalgam of two distinct broader templates: {{overly detailed}} and {{very long}}. It would be reasonable to make it a wrapper of either, or possibly merge with {{very long section}} as the closest match. But the wording changes that were done improperly early in the discussion above should not be repeated. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep still has unique use-case for when a section has to be fundamentally rewritten rather than simply culling details. Orchastrattor (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is a big difference between a section and an entire article being overly detailed. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The template "Overly Detailed" was originally named "Fancruft", addressing a more specific issue of
  content irrelevancy (as opposed to tone or POV addressed by Template:Fan POV). Its name and content got more generic over time. If the current form is merged, the Fancruft redirect I think can be spun off to a template closer to its original spirit.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, the solution to the problem eaised by the former template may only involve moving text around within the article, the solution to a correctly placed {{Overly detailed}} always involves some content removal or rewriting. Mach61 (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge {{Summarize section}} to {{Very long section}} – if anything is duplicated here, it's these two templates. {{Overly detailed}} has a section parameter and is fundamentally pretty different, while {{Very long section}} is quite similar to {{Summarize section}}, though the latter two emphasize different problems; I just think summarize section emphasizes a problem that can already be covered with {{Overly detailed|section}}. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 14:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC) Edited 14:23, 21 October 2023 (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.

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

).

• Template:Maps of burial places of classical musicians (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Excessive big template with very unclear limits ("classical musicians") to what can added. Only links to the places, not to the musicians, and is used in just one article. Not approved on AfC but moved into the open by the writer. The Banner talk 18:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the info. I'm still kinda new to wikipedia (it was my first template and my first map), so I apologize if I got anything wrong.

I wanted to add several maps to an article, and I saw other good articles such as List of monastic houses in Ireland or List of national parks of Sweden that used templates to insert the maps into the article, seemed to be a clean way so i tried to imitate them. What is the specific problem here? Should i make several templates instead of a "big" one? What would be the ideal and cleanest way to add the maps to the article? Thanks so much in advance for your guidance Gor1995 (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The examples you give are about a single country. Your template is worldwide. Beside that: what is a "classical musician", especially without any names? The Banner talk 21:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Classical musicians = composers and instrumentalists of the Classical music tradition.

I ended up making the maps not to show any musician names, because the main purpose was to show the locations and adding all the names would have been impractical and also would not fit (e.g there are dozens of notable musicians buried in Vienna in several different cemeteries).

So what you're saying is that it would be more correct to make a template for every country? I'm honestly trying to understand what would be the best way to do this. Thanks again Gor1995 (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I say is that the template is ill-defined and serves no purpose. The Banner talk 03:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ill-defined and no purpose; they are just a bunch of maps with cities without any connection to the stated purpose. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment their purpose is to illustrate the corresponding article. I think based on the points raised above that article more broadly needs discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Realised that this template does not follow Wikipedia:Template namespace#Guidelines. This template should not have been created in the first place. Sorry for the inconvenience. Gor1995 (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2023 (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.

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 23:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Bălți Municipality, Moldova (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2023 (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.

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 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WPJournalsCotW-Usertalk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:WPJournalsCotW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions. Abandoned weekly collaboration template from 2007 and 2008. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These (and most or all) collaboration template are unused for long abandoned ideas and should be deleted. Gonnym (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2023 (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.

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 relisted on 2023 October 10. ✗plicit 23:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:US_Scheduled_Substances (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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.

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 23:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Georgia State Panthers quarterback navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with no main article (and no potential for one) and only one blue link. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. {{Ohio State Buckeyes quarterback navbox}} is an example of what this can look like, but most Georgia State starting quarterbacks probably aren't notable. Mackensen (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at this time. Only one blue link, so serves no valid navigational function presently. No prejudice against recreation, but only after there are at least 2 or 3 other notable Georgia State quarterback articles so there is something to navigate through here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Mackensen, Ejgreen77, WikiCleanerMan, and Jonesey95: Just noting that a second article has been created linking to the navbox - not sure if that'll change any of your views. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2023 (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.

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 23:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Map - Party affiliations in the European Council (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-article image and legend with no template parameters. Copy into article and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No need to subst. Just copy the image and format it with the context in the caption section. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2023 (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.

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 23:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Main coordinates templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions. It was used only in {{Coor URL/doc}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2023 (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.

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 23:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Magnoald Ziegelbauer graphical timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Empty, abandoned timeline used in stub article. Delete without substing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2023 (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.

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 23:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Miladin Šobić (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The linked articles are nearly all redirects and the other one is for a relative. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2023 (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.

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) 03:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:In Crimea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Clunky and unnecessary; simply stating "Crimea" is the usual practice in infoboxes. Transclusion count, unsurprisingly, is a tiny fraction of the corpus of articles for locations in Crimea. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The results of these referendums, if you can call them like that, is highly disputed, to phrase it in a very polite way. Also, the Russian annexation of Crimea was illegal under international and of course, Ukrainian law. I suggest that since the overwhelming majority of the international community recognizes Crimea as Ukrainian territory, it should be considered as such here too. Frank-Horst (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's certainly clunky, but I'm not sure about unnecessary. Compare, e.g., Perekop, which transcludes this template, to Sevastopol, which doesn't. Which has the clunkier infobox? Which gives a better understanding of the political status of Crimean places? (Genuine questions.)
  If this template is kept, I have three update wishes about it: 1. that it formats its blue clicky citation link as a lower-alpha explanatory footnote instead of a numeric reference citation 2. that it includes a citation to a reliable source regarding the political status of Crimea, and 3. a link to the article Political status of Crimea somewhere in the footnote. Folly Mox (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Both of those infoboxes seem to violate both the consensus reached about Ukrainian place infoboxes not to show occupation status (can’t remember where at the moment), the advice at

  WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE

  that this is a place for key facts, and the intent of the hierarchical structure of the subdivision fields in the infobox.

  Hiding the confusing clutter in a note is just as bad, because readers who look at it leave with different information than those who don’t.

  Occupied status is ephemeral, and historically

  WP:RECENTISM, and not key or defining facts about settlements during a war where it is subject to change.  —Michael Z. 13:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  No, that was for occupied settlements following the 2022 invasion.[1] Mellk (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. That nomination said “in principle, this RfC should apply to any ongoing to conflict,” and all of the principles discussed upon which the consensus was based equally apply to infoboxes for occupied places during wartime anywhere.  —Michael Z. 16:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes delete. No, stating “Crimea” under country for places in Ukraine is not the usual practice.  —Michael Z. 13:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, simply Ukraine is enough. Information regarding the Russian occupation can be included in the text. --
  WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 23:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]