Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 August 10

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< August 9 August 11 >

August 10

edit

Template:R category with possibilities

edit
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The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nom. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  06:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:R category with possibilities with Template:R with possibilities.
Note: WP:TFD#NOT does not seem to apply to WP:RCAT templates for some reason.

Does substantially the same thing but could easily be populated in much the same way that Category:Template redirects with possibilities is populated. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: You know... I forgot how redirected categories work for a second there.   Self-trout
What we could do is just make an if statement for {{R with possibilities}} that just uses the merged code of {{R category with possibilities}} whenever it is transcluded within category-space. Wouldn't that work just as well?
Clarification: The original proposal never suggested we merge Category:Category redirects with possibilities with Category:Redirects with possibilities. I'm just trying to improve the ease of use of WP:Archer. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I had to scratch my head and look some things up, because it's been a long time since I last read the {{Redirect template}} meta documentation. When I first began to work with rcats and redirect categorization, I noted in the pre-module {{Redirect template}} documentation that rcats which use that template can be expected to be unstable and yield unexpected results if used on soft redirects. If I'm not mistaken, there are only two rcats that presently do not use the {{Redirect template}} as a meta template, and they are {{Wikidata redirect}} and {{R category with possibilities}}. Those are the only two rcats that can be used on soft redirects. This proposed merge would place the {{R category with possibilities}} code on the same page as the {{R with possibilities}} code, and the latter rcat uses the {{Redirect template}} as a meta template. Hopefully, I'm being clear that {{R with possibilities}} and {{R category with possibilities}} use incompatible code and are unsuitable for merging. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  04:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth: That makes perfect sense! Thank you!! Stupid question: Can you close this TFD for me? I am not as apt in understanding TFD as I am MFD, RFD, or even AFD. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  06:04, 13 August 2019 (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:Censor

edit
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:Censor. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Censor with Template:Not censored.
Three templates with the same purpose. I suggest adding a small version to {{censor}} similar to {{not censored}} and then redirecting/substituting {{not censored}} and {{notcensored2}} --Trialpears (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2019 (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:New message

edit
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 2019 August 17. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:41, 17 August 2019 (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:MediaWiki talk header

edit
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:Interface explanation. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:MediaWiki talk header with Template:Interface explanation.
Two templates for the exact same purpose. Suggest redirecting {{MediaWiki talk header}} to {{Interface explanation}}. --Trialpears (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2019 (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:How to archive

edit
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Section explaining how to archive a page. It only has 4 transclusions and does a worse job than Help:Archive which editors would easily find by doing a simple search. It also doesn't talk about when to archive, which is essential to know if you're considering archiving a page --Trialpears (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2019 (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:Copied multi

edit
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:Copied. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Copied multi with Template:Copied.
Redundant template. It would be better adding Copied multi's functionality in the main copied template. --Trialpears (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2019 (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).

C&NW s-line templates

edit
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{s-line}} templates for the Chicago and North Western Railway. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Chicago and North Western Railway. All transclusions replaced. There are six dependent s-line data modules which should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2019 (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:Artemis program

edit
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Artemis program with Template:Orion program.
Since the two templates share mostly the same list of wikilinks, I think it'd be ideal to have them more efficiently listed in the one navbox, as displayed below!

– PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 22:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jadebenn: Do you have a source to prove the Orion program is a sub-program of Artemis? NASA has explicitly stated that CLPS is part of Artemis, though I am unaware of times when they've said the same for the Orion program. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 13:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilipTerryGraham: I said "parts of Artemis", not "sub-programs of Artemis." I mean that in the same way that the SLS is part of Artemis, but it's managed separately.- Jadebenn (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jadebenn: I may need clarification on what you mean by "part of Artemis", if not a subset, sub-program, sub-project, ect.? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 21:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilipTerryGraham: Like I said, I mean it in the same way that SLS is a part of Artemis. It's a component. - Jadebenn (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jadebenn: I apologise Jade, but I'm really struggling to understand how "component" is not just another synonym... – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 22:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This template would really cover 3 programs: Orion, Artemis and CLPS. As CLPS is officially part of Artemis I have no problem leaving that out of the title, while Orion is not and therefore should be in the title. Just my 3 cents --Trialpears (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but the fact that they're not the same program is, if anything, an even stronger reason to keep the templates seperate. - Jadebenn (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @PhilipTerryGraham: I have taken the liberty of going through the relevant pages and changing them to demonstrate what I believe the appropriate use of these two templates are. I do not mean for this to be seen as "going behind your back," but rather, a rectification of a miscategorization of missions. As you can see, with these changes, there's not a whole lot of overlap. - Jadebenn (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Orion program is a set of missions that uses at least one Orion spacecraft. The Artemis 7 does not carry Orion and is NOT part of the Orion program. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata T⁄S 07:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jadebenn, Soumya-8974, and Trialpears: I think we’ve gone incredibly off track here. The point of this merger is to have what will essentially be the same set of wikilinks in the one navbox. It makes no sense to have two seperate navboxes for what will mostly be the same list of articles. Nobody here is proposing to merge the two programs or present the programs as a subset of the other. We’re only trying to have the same set of wikilinks presented more efficiently through one navbox instead of two. Please, please, please understand this. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is stable to have the same set of wikilinks presented more efficiently through one navbox instead of two. However, what about 2033, when NASA will be ready to send people on the Mars!? It is NOT an objective of the Artemis program. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata T⁄S 14:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the thing: when used properly (IMO), there's not actually that much overlap. - Jadebenn (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Opposed They are different programs. What is next, merge SLS rocket, CLPS, Artemis, Gateway, and The Moon? Rowan Forest (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but Orion is now a component of the Artemis program, it does not need its own title and logo in the combined navbox. — JFG talk 22:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 1) There is no such thing as "Orion missions" as indicated in the template. It redirects to Artemis missions. It only adds confusion. Orion is a supporting hardware used for Artemis missions: Artemis 1 through 8; absolutely nobody refers to the missions as Orion 1 through Orion 8 missions. Do not merge! Especially not under such format and redirects. 80% of the Orion template is about how they developed the capsule and its tests; how is that different from the development of the SLS, which is not proposed to be merged. A single link to Orion in the Artemis template suffices. 2) Artemis 7 mission will not use Orion, what then? Make another section titled "Orion Missions without Orion"? Orion is not a sequence of missions, just hardware! Rowan Forest (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata T⁄S 06:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rowan Forest: I believe SLS should simply be considered part of the Artemis program. Note that the SLS article is not in the NASA navbox: it's folded under Artemis; nor is Saturn V (under Apollo program). There is apparently no navbox dedicated to the SLS, nor do we need one. — JFG talk 08:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I was not lobbying to also include multiple pages related to the development of the SLS into this template; On the contrary, I was trying to make a comparison of what should and should not be in the template. I fully support a section in the template listing the hardware (Orion, service module, Gateway, SLS, etc.) but EXCLUDING the links to all the pages detailing their development and tests (e.g their History.) I admit that including/excluding Orion development pages in the Hardware section is not critical or wrong, but that space rather be used to list the multiple assets to be deployed by the CLPS program supporting Artemis, not the history on how each asset came to be. In other words, each asset developmental history is beyond the scope of this template. There will be about 37 launches before Artemis 3 is launched, and dozens more if the program gets funded through Artemis mission #8. Do we want to dilute the entries in the template with pages on how each asset was developed? Rowan Forest (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rowan Forest: I hear you, but we're only talking about 3–4 articles here. No big deal, not enough to justify a separate navbox just for Orion. — JFG talk 17:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG: In your "Updated proposal" how about changing "Test flights" for "Orion development", where we add those 2 test flights plus "abort modes" and Orion Lite. I think keeping all the Orion links together in one row/section will work best in the long term when we will have a lot more hardware and spacecraft to list. Rowan Forest (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, wouldn't that put too much emphasis on Orion development? I'd rather ditch the Orion Lite link which refers to an abandoned concept. That being said, I believe this forum should first decide on merging the templates, and then we can tweak the outcome within the normal editing process. — JFG talk 21:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I am the only opposition, then I concede to the merge. Merge and create one row for Orion under whatever name, instead of spreading all its related pages across the template. As you said, the format can be refined after the merge. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move "Orion program" to "Orion spacecraft" —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 07:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "Orion program" exists and it is developing the Orion spacecraft. Rowan Forest (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Updated proposal

Noting that there is no article called "Orion program" (it redirects to Orion (spacecraft)), that reinforces the position that Orion-related articles should be entirely folded into the Artemis navbox, which should simply be titled "Artemis program". Suggesting also to distinguish launchers from spacecraft, and flatten the hierarchy --> it would look like this:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JFG (talk • contribs)
That is an improvement, except for the "Test flights" section: My main reason for no merge is because it keeps an undue weight on the history on one particular component of many (albeit an important one). All the links/pages on the Orion tests, developmental versions (abort modes, Orion Lite), and such history of their development are unnecessary in the wider picture of the history of the multiple assets that are going to be deployed to support the Artemis program. Another problem with having a "Test flights" section, is that Artemis 1 and Artemis 2 missions are test flights too.
For these reasons I still think that the Orion development is best presented in its own nice Orion program template, and we should only list a single link to the Orion capsule in this template. But I don't want to be pushy and I will step back and see if there is a consensus developing. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call Artemis 2 a test flight, as it will carry astronauts. Artemis 1, as the first flight of the SLS, could indeed move into the "Test flights" section. Just a couple more articles about Orion don't seem overkill in the merged template. A lot more stuff will be added over time, for example the various approved commercial landers, the components of the gateway, commercial cargo flights, etc. We can possibly create new sub-sections when there are too many articles in the same one. — JFG talk 21:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I can merge two templates into one. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 16:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about this (although not really a merge)?

User:Soumya-8974/Artemis program

—Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 16:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's another way to present it, although I prefer my compact version above. I like the additions of Houston and White Sands; probably the Deep Space Network will soon play a role as well. Conversely, I don't think we should link the rocket engines and individual rocket stages that will be used. But anyway, this forum should first decide to merge the templates, and then we can update the outcome by the normal editing and discussion process. — JFG talk 22:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I made this draft based on {{Apollo program}}, {{Space Shuttle}}, and the original {{Artemis program}}. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 09:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The newest proposal is an improvement, but I still believe it's unnecessary. Take a look at how many pages do not utilize both the Orion program and Artemis program templates. I'd wager that the majority only use one or the other. Thus, I'm not seeing why a merger is neccessary. I believe the design and history of the Orion spacecraft is noteworthy separately from the Artemis program, even if there is some overlap. Jadebenn (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2019 (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 CHERUB mission

edit
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

INUNIVERSE extra infoboxes placed in addition to either Infobox book or Infobox character. The subpages are all hardcoded instances of the main template. I suggest deletion without substitution. --Trialpears (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:49, 10 August 2019 (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:Argentina national baseball team roster

edit
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I merged these single-use templates with the parent articles (with attribution) so they are no longer needed in template space. the general consensus is that we don't need templates for to single purpose of housing content that appears only one or two times in article space. Frietjes (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2019 (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/2019_August_10&oldid=957102962"