Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 29

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< September 28 September 30 >

September 29 edit

Template:FaxonRash 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 October 8. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:18, 8 October 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:Surviving ocean going ships 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 convert to list. Note that Draft:List of surviving ocean going ships exists, which I am going to histmerge this template into, and can be moved to the article space if and when appropriate. Extant uses of the template will be removed. Primefac (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This navbox does not meet the critiera 1, 2, 3, or 5 in WP:NAVBOX (and probably not 4 either though I haven't looked) and should be deleted (or listified/category-ized) accordingly. Izno (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Split. - The collection of links could be useful if they are repurposed as was done with Template:Oldest surviving ships (pre-1919) which links to List of oldest surviving ships. I have no problem with a List of surviving World War II ships type list for example if it is done properly. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That template probably also should go. What a mess. :^) --Izno (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split as above (if that is the appropriate word for "convert"). Or perhaps convert to a category. As a template it makes "What links here" completely useless by linking articles with no commonality other than existence and no textual link or even reason to have such a link. Such a large and unspecific template collection completely breaks the key editing function for finding and maintaining textual links between articles. Palmeira (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Palmeira: 'split' means turn the single navbox into a number of smaller navboxes, which will reduce your problems of polluting 'What links here', but not eradicate it. --RexxS (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I support a list, not smaller problems. The comment above mine indicates a list then with repeated use of "list" — I have no problem with it going to a list. Just having smaller levels of corruption of "What links here" is not a good solution. So, I support your comment below. Palmeira (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify: there's a maintenance problem with links when so many barely related articles are linked together with this sort of navbox. A good list article would be much better. As a tabular list, it would allow more information than a simple link (year of launch and notes come to mind). A list article would be appropriate for the See also section for any of the articles on the list, so there would be no loss of navigation functionality. --RexxS (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A tabular list would be a much better option. Palmeira (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What is the point of this template - or indeed a category or list with the same content? I am struggling to imagine a practical use. It looks a bit like CAT:LP, but that has a clear content management purpose related to WP:BLP. Davidships (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As much as I dislike the thing's effect on finding links I see some value in a list as a collection of survivors from the period. The ships have nothing else in common, but such a list would be helpful for anyone looking for period ships that survive as museum or even operating vessels. I do not think they should otherwise be associated by links or sub-groups unless there is a real association that could be a category rather than links. For example a builder, line, navy or perhaps event — such as ships at "Pearl Harbor" or "Normandy" or such events. I believe there are already categories for some of those type of connections. As an alternate to a list there could be a category for the listed vessels with sub categories. The advantage of the list would only be the potential of a table as discussed above. Palmeira (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify such a huge template serves no navigational value. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to list Mjroots (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've created Draft:List of surviving ocean going ships to show how a tabular list might look. If it's useful, please feel free to knock it into shape as a stand alone list. --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Promising and potentially much more useful with a brief description field. For example a location for museum or other localized ships. Another possibly for particular significance; "first xxxx" or "did this" sort of thing. In my view it would be worth while doing some "system engineering" on such fields before an implementation — is it really useful, what functionality and so on hammering out things rather than retrofits after people start filling them in. Location can be short with a link helping people even plan a visit. Significance could be thorny because some don't have clear basis, Lady Hutton for example. Hanne Marie is easier, "Original gaff ketch sailing vessel" for example. Palmeira (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we are going to make a list then we have to be sure that it is readable per WP:TOOLONG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sample in two categories. Each can be subdivided into decades with navigation at the top just as in many other such lists such as any of the built or in List of shipwrecks. Palmeira (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Knowledgekid87: WP:SPLITLIST applies. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the list doesn't need to be split further. Proper sectioning will take care of any navigation issues. What about ships from C19th and earlier that survive, how will they be handled? As the original intention of the template was ships over 50 years old, surviving vessels from Category:1970 ships should now be included. Mjroots (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pre-1900 (in fact pre-1919) ships are already at List of oldest surviving ships, which seems fine to me. Why not just follow that format (with or without images)? Davidships (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Consistent format across related ship lists is a worthy requirement. I would say just follow what has been, even photos which are more likely available for the later ships. Palmeira (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per WP:SPLITLIST. Pahlevun (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify, or straight up delete. If I'm reading on a boat that happened to be built in 1934, what will be interesting is other similar boats, not boats that happened to be built in the same year. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify, as the topic is almost certainly notable. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:12, 7 October 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).

Appalachian League rosters 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 October 7. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:53, 7 October 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:Current events portal 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 October 16. Primefac (talk) 00:16, 16 October 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).

TransLink 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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated {{s-line}} templates replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/TransLink. Fleet Lists (talk) 05:02, 29 September 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).

Old unused module sandboxes 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 October 16. Primefac (talk) 00:16, 16 October 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:Dot 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 relisted on 2020 October 7. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:53, 7 October 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:Being merged 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:Being merged, keeping in mind the points raised by the discussion about parameters and categorisation. Primefac (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Being merged with Template:Merging.
This is somewhat ironic, but the first template has fewer parameters than the second. JsfasdF252 (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace and delete the first template per nom. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 04:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Nom is correct that these templates are redundant with each other. However, they have at least one parameter incompatibility, and {{Being merged}} is more flexible in that it is not namespace-constrained. The misfeature that {{Merging}} is namespace-limited should simply be fixed. It's not actually reasonable for the template to take partial-page name input and guess at the namespace. It should just required the entire page name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Now we just have to decide which template to tag them with, while that's being done... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge; in earlier discussion about the duplication (Template talk:Being merged#Similar template) there was some discussion between User:Trialpears and me about this. The advantage of Template:Being merged is that it sorts pages to a different category to the proposal categories, and hence makes it easier to find articles where consensus has already been reached. Perhaps Template:Merging could follow that model. Klbrain (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to other merge temps. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 07:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete A single template name is easier to remember and less confusing than having both templates be merged. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment {{Being merged}} is de facto used after a merge discussion has indicated there is consensus to merge, but it is awaiting the implementation. e.g. Third-degree murder. {{Merging}} reads like it's a duplicate of {{Being merged}}, but behaves like a generic version of {{Merge from}} & {{Merge to}} (thus a duplicate of {{Merge}}). You can see this evidenced in the categorisation for this template (which is mixed in with the "a merge is proposed" categories) and in the documentation, which sees itself akin to those templates. {{Merging}} seems like a template which doesn't know its purpose in life. Absent evidence that de facto usage differs from my summary, I think it's best to merge, but to the title {{Being merged}}, for clarity. Further, the template should keep the categorisation structure of the current {{Being merged}}. Per SMcCandlish, it may also be a good idea to redesign the template to support cross-namespace merges, which is something {{Merging}} is currently unable to do. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:51, 7 October 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_September_29&oldid=983742733"