Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 November 18

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 17 November 19 >

November 18 edit

Template:2011 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification - UEFA Group 1 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) 22:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:15, 19 November 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:Billboard Year-End Adult Pop Songs Chart 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G8 -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and no potential future use following deletion of content at AfD StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:43, 18 November 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:Loving County, Texas 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN. Navbox with only 2 articles, and no possibility this could ever be expanded. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't know whether to laugh or say, "awwww! how cute!" Nonetheless, this is a case of a hatnote would be better than a navbox. --Doug Mehus T·C 19:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:10, 21 November 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:Freemasonry in the Americas 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 November 28. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:16, 28 November 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:Lnep and Template:Lnep/begin 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 November 27. (non-admin closure) Wug·a·po·des​ 15:10, 27 November 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:Archive box 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:Archives. (non-admin closure) Wug·a·po·des​ 14:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Archive box with Template:Archives.

  • Note: No currently working transclusions will be changed, and no template will be deleted.

This template is a legacy wrapper for {{archives}}, which has additional functionality not present in this template. Users would be better served without this unnecessary wrapper giving them access to the new features and future tweaks. There is also significant confusion caused by this duality with a lot of people not knowing which template to use. I experienced this personally earlier this year when trying to find the right box for my talk page archives, but ended up just using the talk page header since the whole setup was so convuluted, this admitedly was exaggerated by the other user page versions, but it's still a problem without them.

This problem has been discussed previously on the talk page in 2010 where there were doubts about the magnitude of this confusion and whether performing the merger would be worth it. I think it's clear that the confusion and extra effort required by editors adding over 5000 new archives using this template requiring to explicitly declare that they want an automatically generated list is more than enough pain to warrant a solution. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • (added: Weak) Keep: widely transcluded, simpler usage than alternative. –xenotalk 13:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge seems fine if almost all usages won’t need to be edited and will not change the display as written for old revisions. –xenotalk 00:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge and redirect. –xenotalk 22:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Xeno, could you elaborate on the simpler usage point? Most of the uses are similar to
    {{Archive box}} which could be added simply using {{Archives}}. For manual lists, which is significantly more rare, Archive box currently doesn't require adding auto=no, while {{Archives}} do. I believe this could be fixed by auto detecting whether manual or automatic lists are desired. After implementing this almost all transclusions will be preserved precisly by redireting and the actual amount of transclusions requiring modification will be just a few hundred or less hopefully elleviating your concerns of the template being too widely transcluded as well. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps work on sandboxing that? Could you elaborate on the benefits mentioned? (Your edit summary on the template said nominated for deletion, now I see you are proposing a redirect.) –xenotalk 13:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the confusion I was intending on nominating it for merging, but forgot to change it again after accidentally closing twinkle. I will start sandboxing if you want. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Sandbox!: per above comments. I am leaning towards support though. I'd appreciate being pinged if, and when, it is done. new !vote somewhere below >.> --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In actu (Guerillero): Nothing will be deleted. One will be a redirect. And yes, there is a reason to have only one: see WP:T3 speedy: duplication. -DePiep (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per above, butSupport the Prevailing Consensus at TfD Close as I get Trialpears' thinking and would support a future merging. What about converting this to a redirect? Assuming the archive bots' archive boxes work the same way, we could just convert this to a redirect maybe? Per TP's update, and since I can't reasonably "test" the validity, I will leave it up to xeno et al. to change their !votes and, thus, my !vote updated to say that I will support the prevailing consensus at close. Doug Mehus T·C 19:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, would this be a WP:SNOW keep, Trialpears or, if not, how many of the same nomination does it generally take to become a snowball?Doug Mehus T·C 19:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's what I use on my talkpage, and I get the feeling that this has been a perennial proposal. I fail to see how WP would be improved by removing this option. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per your post below if I do not [have to change anything], it's fine with me, is it clear that no change is needed and so you can !vote "Merge"? -DePiep (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that, and on the reasonable explanation by Danhash below, my concerns have been addressed. I remain offended by the comments directed at me by another editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Striking because it's not worth it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Xeno, Elitematterman, In actu, Dmehus, and Tryptofish: I have now made a merged version in the sandbox, whose inpact can be seen at Template:Archive box/testcases where all test cases are the same except for when the template has no source for it's archive lists, ie when there is no auto parameter and no list of links. In these cases the template now defaults to using the automatic mode which will be the biggest improvement from this merger fixing over 300 archive boxes that currently doesn't link anywhere. The only edits that will be required to implement this is aroung 50 edits to fix issues where the new auto detect feature doesn't work listed at Category:Archive boxes with duplicate archive lists. This is done by adding auto=yes if both an automatic list and a manual list are desired, which it isn't in a lot of cases even in this category. There is also improved logic to avoid redlinked edit this list links which removes the link in two testcases, but this is unrelated to the main changes.
To sum this up: There will be no changes to currently working archive boxes, but for around 300 instances that currently has no links will be fixed. On top of this it will make the archiving system significantly cleaner and make it easier to set up. Feel free to suggest further improvements and I'll happily implement them. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All that I care about is that I won't have to change anything at my user talk page. If I do have to change anything, I will oppose the revision, and if I do not, it's fine with me. And I think you'll find a lot of other users who feel the same way. I'm having trouble caring about those tracking categories. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) @Trialpears: I don't think most of those 300 errors that are in the User Talk space are errors. They have the search function turned on. Users made a choice for their talk page and that choice should be respected. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 22:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In actu, the search bar being enabled isn't an intentional choice in most of these cases since it defaulted to off up until 2015 and most of these are older then that and haven't explictly specified search=yes. I see where you're coming from wanting to preserve user choices, but this is so non-intrusive I'm not worried about it. Adding the search bar to thousands of pages was a bigger change which were barely discussed and noone has complained since as far as I can tell. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that changing how people's user pages look and function is the exact opposite of "non-intrusive" --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is not the problem because such a change is not proposed. The proposal is to merge the two boxes, keeping functionality and appearance for both templates. One will be a redirect. -DePiep (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trialpears: so only about 50 instances will require correction (that are already broken)? Your changes do not affect current users of {{archives}}? –xenotalk 17:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Xeno, There are now about 100 total instances requiring updating from both {{archives}} and {{archive box}}. 70ish are {{archives}} using both the auto archive functionality and a manual list such as Talk:2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_and_tsunami and User_talk:Cuchullain.There are also a lot of weird transclusions here similar to User talk:Dmyersturnbull where a link to their user talk page is added. The other 30ish are uses of {{archive box}} with unique ways to declare a article list or intentionally only showing a search bar such as User talk:Andre Kritzinger and User talk:Echtoran. The main reason for the previous low estimate was that the tracking categories not being properly populated yet and me estimating the prevalence of article lists in the title parameter too low. I've now done a more indept estimates and this one won't be far away from the final count. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your efforts. Assuming you’ll fix those usages, I’m fine with the MaR. –xenotalk 22:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposal. So many baseless WP:IDONTLIKEIT comments above which is just amazing. I can personally back up Trialpears's comment that there is confusion with the various archive templates. Having the code merged will allow easier access to newer users, while also allowing better support from the template editors. Editors commenting at TfD should really understand a little bit of code and not act so entitled. --Gonnym (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    IDONTLIKEIT applies to content, not to making things easier for template editors. The last time I checked, one doesn't need to be a coder to contribute to Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    One should understand the basics of code when discussing the code-side of the project as arguments like If I do have to change anything, I will oppose the revision are incredibly childish and entitled and fail to understand basic issues of why forking code is bad. Also, your comment of I fail to see how WP would be improved by removing this option is exactly why you should have some basic understanding, as then you wouldn't "fail to see" very simple things. --Gonnym (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Incredibly childish"? Yes, and I smell bad, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Tryptofish, do you agree byt now that this is not a deletion but a merge proposal, ie the one on youer talkpage does not change nor require any change edit? You !vote seems to stem from a mistake. Pls reconsider. -DePiep (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    See above. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a bad argument against deleting something, not preserving the functionality of a template. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposal per pretty much the above argument. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Guerillero and Tryptofish's points above. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Lord Roem Tryptofish wrote If I do have to change anything, I will oppose the revision, and if I do not, it's fine with me. Since the merge proposed does not require changes to pages (edits), Tryptofish does support the merge. Pls change your !vote accordingly. -DePiep (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for flagging, DePiep. In that case, if those concerns have been addressed, I'm not opposed to the merge. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Guerillero and Tryptofish - I use it and I archive by years (or as IE "2018 1") which doesn't appear on the alternative one, IDONTLIKEIT is not valid reason to delete something, My assumption is that if this is deleted then us manually archivers are screwed. –Davey2010Talk 21:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Davey2010 the proposal right now seems to be a merge, with both retaining their existing functionality. Try replacing your “archive box” with “archives/sandbox” and see if it still looks the same in preview. –xenotalk 21:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • xeno, Ah sorry, Yep it does look the exact same, But having read your !vote I also agree the set up is much simpler than the alt one. –Davey2010Talk 22:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Xeno, I just tried that, too, and it looks the same for me. But then again, I'm incredibly childish, so it would have been very helpful if someone had simply explained that to me much earlier. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lord Roem, you may also wish to take a look at this incase your main concerns were similar to those of Tryptofish which seems to be mostly resolved. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I completely agree with the logic behind this nomination. Major props to Trialpears for bringing out this proposal and finally getting these two templates merged!! The future is finally here!!! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Simpler is better. Sounds like non-technical users won't be negatively impacted, and it will be easier for new non-technical users to figure out how to set up their archives. Technical users with a strong preference for a particular configuration still have the option to use whatever configuration they like; a few technical users may have to edit their talk pages to get the display to match EXACTLY what they want, but this is the way of the world for technical users with strong opinions: I have had to made quite a number of changes over the years to make my special customizations continue to work. There are no guarantees that templates won't change over time in an effort to make Wikipedia easier to use, and in fact users should expect change (and one such previous change was mentioned above and is precedent for this type of change). I'm opposed to having multiple templates for the same thing when one template will work just fine. I am a technical user and I appreciate template cleanup like this. I understand the opposing arguments, but all of them have been addressed. What we now have are a small number of technical users with strong preferences arguing for what they want by making theoretical arguments, and these users can still have their talk page function EXACTLY as they want, perhaps with minor tweaking that they are demonstrably capable of (and would arguably take less time than continuing to argue here). —danhash (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's a merge, people, nothing will be deleted. There is even speedy WP:T3: Templates that are substantial duplications of another template. -DePiep (talk) 09:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    DePiep, Good point. This might be a good example of why we'd want to keep the redirect for the old template once merged (i.e., for the many, many archived pages in various namespaces). We'll want to sandbox this heavily, but I have no concerns with Trialpears doing this and getting consensus prior to "going live." Doug Mehus T·C 20:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    T3 is a red herring: the redirect will have tens of thousands of transclusions and should not be deleted or updated. This does look ready for merge. –xenotalk 17:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Xeno, Yes, this is an excellent case for keeping the redirect for the merged template post-merge. Doug Mehus T·C 17:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposal (reason) dibbydib 💬/✏ 22:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure that "no currently working transclusions will be changed". I've used {{Archive box}} with {{Archives by months}} for several years on my talk page. When I changed Archive box to Archives to see what would happen, it made the box much bigger and included seven early numbered archives to which I already link elsewhere on my TP. Keeping both templates does no harm, and a merge may have other unintended consequences. Miniapolis 02:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to sandbox version, which works fine and doesn't mess up my TP like the TfD notification does  . Thanks, Xeno. Miniapolis 15:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Miniapolis: did you try with “archives/sandbox” ? The merged version is only in the sandbox at present. –xenotalk 14:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As many people have said, Template:Archive box could be deleted per T3. I think Template:Archives seems like an objectively better version of Template:Archives as well, so I have nothing against this proposal. InvalidOS (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's simple and reliable and many of us like to use it. Per several discussions above, I'd say it's very unlikely that any of the other "solutions" will work quite the same way, or as simply; indeed, if it's a wrapper that usefully simplifies an otherwise complex template, then it's cheap and beneficial, exactly why it should be kept. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Chiswick Chap in the merge and redirect, nothing will change for adherents of archive box (and will gain access to some unspecified improvements that were made to {{archives}}). Try using archives/sandbox in place of your existing archive box to be sure. –xenotalk 14:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are not understanding what I said. I would not like anything in the syntax that I use to change. You are promising that some other gadget will work "the same way": maybe it will, and maybe it won't. If it does not, it's not providing the *functionality* I want; if it does, it's providing the functionality but not the *user interface* that I want. Either way, I !voted to keep both the functionality and the user interface as they are, i.e to Keep. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually with you - you'll see that I've actually been the one that spearheaded efforts to "keep" archive box in past discussions. Through some technical marvelry, Trialpears has allowed us to 1) keep the same syntax (you won't need to change a thing); 2) have the same display; and 3) provide the functionality and UI we want. I respect your position to keep things the way they are, though. Archive box is not in use on your talk page, is there a place you would like me to test the merged version to ensure that your three points will be met? –xenotalk 14:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coretheapple, the proposal is not to delete, but to merge and redirect to {{Archives}}. This merger won't affect the output of your archive box or require any adjustments as can be seen by replacing {{archive box}} with {{archives/sandbox}}. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to ask! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:06, 26 November 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).

2018–19 East Midlands Counties Football League table 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) 22:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:37, 18 November 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:Ring and knot-shaped breads 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) 20:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Ring and knot-shaped breads with Template:Bread.
Originally stumbled upon this tiny template listing both ring- and knot-shaped breads in two columns and two rows. I'd wondered whether merging with Template:Bread might be possible, but held off as it didn't immediately occur to me how.

However, I've re-evaluated my original thought, with the view that merging should not be especially problematic. I was thinking we could either sub-divide the "Types" row of the Template:Bread template or create a new row called "Styles" or "Variations". I'm open to other ideas on how the two templates could be merged, but I know Trialpears might be to keen on merging these templates (assuming consensus at close supports that decision).

At any rate, the reasons for merging are relatively low pageviews, very low transclusions (about a dozen types of ring- and knot-shaped breads), and merging into Template:Bread would not be overly problematic in that it is not that large of a template (both in terms of screen and file size wise). Doug Mehus T·C 01:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Separating by shape does not seem like a useful distinction and an appropriate merged template could be made without any size or scope concerns. Can't promise anything about the actual merging, but I may perform it just as any other item in the holding cell. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to oppose after Kpalion's concerns about differences between the template's scope. {{Bread}} only has major types of bread while {{Ring and knot-shaped breads}} have very specific types of bread. Istill don't think {{Ring and knot-shaped breads}} has an optimal scope since it doesn't have a main article and doesn't really grouping ring shappes and knot shapes is kind of arbitrary, but I don't have a better solution. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Trialpears, I thought the same thing as you originally, Trialpears, but the more I thought about it, I think that was just because I wasn't thinking fourth-dimensionally. I still say we should try and merge this template. If for some reason, people object to it, it's not that hard to split. If I could twist your arm to consider changing your !vote back, it'd be much appreciated. --Doug Mehus T·C 22:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Dmehus, I think the scope of the merged template would be too large or very arbitrary. It would include both the general things which {{bread}} currently has as well as specific types of bread making the navbox huge or have the scope of general bread related topic + specific types of ring and knot-shaped breads. Both these scenarios would be suboptimal and I won't change my mind if there aren't any new arguments raised. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Gzuufy (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The same case could be made for merging Template:Flatbreads into Template:Bread, but then the latter would become too big to be of any use. I'm in favor of status quo with several smaller navboxes, one for more generic bread-related articles, and other for more specific subtopics. — Kpalion(talk) 11:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Kpalion, Yes, you could merge Template:Flatbreads, but that doesn't mean we can't merge this small template into Template:Bread and still have Template:Flatbreads. I still propose merging these templates and leaving Template:Flatbreads separate for the reason you cite. Doug Mehus T·C 23:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So Template:Ring and knot-shaped breads is small. Is that a bad thing? I believe smaller navboxes are actually more navigable than the big, bloated ones. — Kpalion(talk) 23:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Kpalion, Yes, I agree that small-ish navboxes are preferable, but merging these two would not make the combined box inordinately large. There's a reason for Template:Flatbreads to be separate, which is why I didn't propose merging it with Template:Bread as well. Template:Ring and knot-shaped breads has only a handful of such breads, which could easily be merged. If you have a better merger target, I'd be open to that as well. Doug Mehus T·C 00:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't have a better merger target. I just don't see a reason why this navbox couldn't be left as it is. — Kpalion(talk) 17:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Kpalion, It's similar to the rationale for merging Template:Dragon Ball anime and Template:Dragon Ball films, the latter of which was supported by the lone person who objected. Doug Mehus T·C 18:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How so? From what I can see in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 November 10#Template:Dragon Ball films, the main reason for the merger was a considerable overlap between the two templetes. There isn't any overlap between Template:Ring and knot-shaped breads and Template:Bread. — Kpalion(talk) 18:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Kpalion, That was one of the reasons. In this case, it's likely a reader reading about "bagels" would also want to read about different types of bread (i.e., sourdough). The proposed template is very short, containing links to only a handful of articles. Doug Mehus T·C 20:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the template is very short, containing links to only a handful of articles. Again, why is this a bad thing? Actually, the longer I look at Template:Bread, the more I think that the opposite of what you propose should be done: split Template:Bread into several smaller templates rather than bloating it even further by merging other templates into it. Currently, it's a mess, with anything from broad high-level overviews (Unleavened bread, Flatbread) to ethnic varieties (Injera, Chapati) to loosely bread-related trivia (Baker percentage). How likely is it that someone who's just read about bagels will also want to read about water, calcium propanoate, stuffing or Texas toast? — Kpalion(talk) 20:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The templates have different scopes. Bread is a generalist template, it makes sense to have specialized templates for use on specialized bread pages in addition to the bread template. Theoretically, specialized templates could be merged into bread with optional parameters determining whether they show up or not, e.g. {{bread}} would result in {{bread}}, {{ring and knot-shaped breads}}, and {{flatbreads}} all being displayed; if that were up and running I'd support, but I'm opposed to a "combine both lists and redirect"-style merge. Wug·a·po·des​ 15:07, 27 November 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_November_18&oldid=1084289359"