Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 June 10

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

June 10 edit

Template:Riley Reid 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 2020 June 17. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2020 (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:Ship builder 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 2020 June 17. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2020 (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:Campaignbox George Floyd protests 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:George Floyd protests. Which effectively means deleting the campaignbox/sidebar. But, please feel free to add any missing links to the navbox if they aren't already all there. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Campaignbox George Floyd protests with Template:George Floyd protests.
Just a second navbox that puts much of the content from {{George Floyd protests}} on the side, too. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies if I did something wrong here (not a ton of experience with TfD). My intention is basically to stop using one of these. My !vote is to stop using the campaign box, but I did it as a merge because I'm not sure if others will think the sidebar is preferable. If that's the case, a merge is in order. If the main/bottom navbox is to be used, it's really just a matter of deletion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, stop using the sidebar Campaignbox. They really duplicate each other, and it's not very helpful to have both. The main/botton navbox one is sufficient. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Why cant we use both? Both give very good info and we dont want to make it harder to find that info. The sidebar is mainly for a list of protests. Idan (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed - The sidebar campaignbox feels redundant. Love of Corey (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the side bar. Side bar templates are a nuisance and take a lot of page realestate, while the bottom navigation templates are out of the way. Also, keeping two templates updated is just a nightmare for maintenance.--Gonnym (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - most navigation for new readers happens in side bars (and we know most readers stop reading in the first few sections), while more complex interelated topic navigation can happen in the lower template -- no sense in trying to merge the two, Sadads (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sidebar. The sidebar has received 74 edits and the bottom nav template has received 245, which is apparent in how much less focused the sidebar is. The bottom nav template is more comprehensive, easier to parse, and doesn't take up valuable real estate at the top of pages. - Featous (talk)
  • Delete sidebar. Delete the Template:Campaignbox George Floyd protests as of the time of this comment the Campaign box has been edited 75 times by 34 editors or 2.20 edits/editor, while the Navbox, aka the box that appears on the bottom of the page, has been edited 249 times by 73 editors giving it an edits/editor ratio of: 3.41.
    If there is anything to merge--if there is content that is unique to the Campaignbox it shold be moved to the Navbox, but that's understood; right?
On a related matter: Does anybody know details about page views for these pages?
Again, as of the timestamp of this comment, the Campaignbox has received a modest 518 views while the Navbox has received a slightly less modest: 620 views: Here's the proof, the pageviews.toolforge.org data for both.
Feels like pageviews only accrue if one explicitly displays the Campaignbox or Navbox, but wait a second. The Campaign box is displayed by default and the Navbox is hidden by default shouldn't the Campaignbox have many more views?

--CmdrDan (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can check them here. --Gonnym (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another question: I can see the count of pages that transclude each of these templates; for those keeping score it's:
* Template:Campaignbox George Floyd protests: 42 transclusions
* Template:George Floyd protests 87 transclusions
Does anyone know how to display the actual pages on which these templates are transcluded?
Does anyone know if any pages are transcluding both templates?

--CmdrDan (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merging By this logic that if a topic's navbar exists a campaignbox can't exist, then almost no campaignbox would exist on Wikipedia. We should delete the World War II campaignbox because a World War II navbar exists. We should delete the American Civil War campaignbox because the American Civil War navbar exists. This logic for deletion would render almost every campaignbox on Wikipedia up for deletion. If you follow this we should have a greater debate about the uses of campaignboxes in general on Wikipedia. Campaignboxes and navbars on Wikipedia detail different things about the topic at large, and sometimes there is overlap.Mangokeylime (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'd probably be surprised in reading WP:TG then which even give duplication as a speedy criteria WP:T3. --Gonnym (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete sidebar for now or trim it significantly. had the campaignbox been used like they are on the world war ii and american civil war articles (with the former listing campaigns of the war as well as contemporary wars, and the latter listing six theaters of the war), then arguably, there would have been value in the selective act itself, even though the links were duplicative. however, as the campaignbox is slowly ballooning to simply duplicate all the entries in the navbox, i don't think the duplication is warranted at this time.
perhaps in the future, once the navbox is filled with many more links and the creation of related articles has died down so that editors would not be as eager to add another page to a campaignbox, a more appropriate subset of the links could be selected for a campaignbox (such as simply "a list of protests" as Zvikorn stated). for example, the campaignbox for the civil rights movement article is a decent campaignbox for a subject similar to that being addressed here.
also, i wouldn't be surprised if a good deal of the views for the current campaignbox turned out to be a result of simply maintaining the sidebar. dying (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The campaignbox is very handy at the top of the page. Putting the template at the top of the page is bulky and scrolling all the way down to the bottom to find the other locations is physically painful for the dystonia in my arm. Removing the campaignbox will make the ability to update the map exponentially more difficult. Kire1975 (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, remove "Notable incidents" and just post the campaingbox with the cities, states and countries pages on the list of protest pages mentioned in the box. The campaignbox is about the protests, the template is about the entire phenomenon. Kire1975 (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kire1975: that is a good point that i had not thought of before. are you editing using a desktop machine? if so, have you tried using any keyboard shortcuts to jump to the bottom of the page? offhand, i am familiar with ⌘ Command+↓ for macos, as well as end (and possibly fn+→) for windows, though what works obviously depends on your operating system, browser, and keyboard.
also, i think dropping all links except for those addressing protests in specific cities, states, or countries is also a decent solution. dying (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge campaignbox. This is entirely redundant with the navbox. Many of the articles on which it is being used have more images than will fit. Having a campaignbox means less room for images. If we want more visibility for the navbox on certain articles, it could be set to be uncollapsed. gobonobo + c 11:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge sidebar; one needs to go and the navbox is less intrusive and aesthetically disruptive to the user experience. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 14:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why does one have to go? Kire1975 (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose most readers don't reach the end of an article, especially longer ones like many of these. No harm in keeping both. ɱ (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sidebar, takes up too much room which could be used for more useful floating content like images and maps. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sidebar per Gonnym et al. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose They serve different purposes. Both are useful and many topics have both for this reason. Jerod Lycett (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2020 (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:Plain 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. I'll update the (as usual, lacking) documentation to make the differentiation clearer (non-admin closure) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Plain with Template:Plain link.
These templates appear to do the same thing, and take the same parameters, so unless I'm missing something, I don't see a reason to keep them separate. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, recommend snow close or withdrawal by nominator: They do not take the same parameters. {{Plain}} takes only |1=, and {{Plain link}} takes |1=, |2=, and named aliases of both. Also, they render differently.
{{plain|http://www.example.com}} → http://www.example.com
{{plain link|http://www.example.com}} → [1]
Unless I'm missing something. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not familiar with these templates, but is there any valid usage for them? I find {{Plain link}} very worrying in that a user can click on Google, not knowing it leads them to an external website and not a page on the site. Now, in this example, Google is a pretty neutral page, but this can easily be something else that can have repercussions. --Gonnym (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2020 (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).

Unused hebrew word 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. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and unlikely to be used. Supposed to be transcluded per Category:Hebrew word templates --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't see any valid use for using these templates for these 4 words. Also, if a system like this were needed, something better can be made which doesn't require a new template for each word. --Gonnym (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we don't usually, and shouldn't, use templates for non-English words. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2020 (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:Bee Gees Greatest tracks 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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded in only one article, and I don't think you would want a track listing in the infobox for each song from a greatest hits album from a group that has released numerous compilations. Where would it stop? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete per nom. No convincing reason this needs to be a template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2020 (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/2020_June_10&oldid=963561060"