The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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:BestOfSevenSeriesTable. ✗plicit 00:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:BestOfSevenSeriesTable2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:BestOfSevenSeriesTable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:BestOfSevenSeriesTable2 with Template:BestOfSevenSeriesTable.
No difference between these two templates. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2022 (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).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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:Infobox Pro hockey team. ✗plicit 00:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox hockey team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox Pro hockey team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox hockey team with Template:Infobox Pro hockey team.
The two infoboxes hardly differ. Many junior hockey teams are split between the two infoboxes. Propose merging to one infobox and renaming ((Infobox ice hockey team)). –Aidan721 (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vaco98: The nomination wasn't to delete, it was to merge. Senator2029 【talk】 05:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and rename per norm. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Rename per nom.--Darwinek (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and rename per norm. –Spitzmauskc (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and rename per nom. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:30, 13 July 2022 (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).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Consensus to delete or redirect is unlikely to be achieved, and there were many keep voters who found it beneficial or harmless. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:For timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:For outline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose redirecting Template:For timeline and Template:For outline to ((further)) or ((seealso)).
Lets redirect these overly long hatnote to ((further)) and/or ((seealso)). Currently used for timelines and outlines articles that are self explanatory in their title. Simply no need for an explination of what is being linked. Seem to have a subset of these specialty hat notes for groups of articles being used out of the blue.Moxy- 14:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC) Examples:[reply]

Moxy- 14:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep When used in isolation I tend to agree that there's not much value in the unique explanatory label that seems redundant with the target title. In cases where there are a large number of hatnotes though, I find this differentiation more helpful. It forces different types of content to new lines and lets me quickly scan in a vertical fashion to see what type of further detail is available. --N8_wilson 🔔 19:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per proposal, No need for a long hatnote for a category of articles.204.237.50.240 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. We don't need a custom template for every possible phrasing. Especially unneeded here since the title of most timeline articles is "Timeline of XYZ" which is rather obvious. SnowFire (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons explained by N8wilson. It is similar to ((Main list)), which has not yet been merged into ((Main)) because of its value of specifically calling out a list article. Thrakkx (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as proposed by Moxy, should we use ((seealso)) as for timeline sections? --5.16.0.18 (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per N8_wilson. 2001:8003:9008:1301:204C:A08C:E4BA:8A29 (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, useful in situations where there are other hatnotes to help the reader understand what is being linked to better. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. We do not need custom templates like this. Where it is absolutely necessary (and this is not such a case generally), ((hatnote)) is available. --Izno (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Izno. Use seems to be redundant for article titles, and there are other ways to create space in the rare instance where trimming hatnotes would not be a better solution. CMD (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WTH? This now shows up in Donald Trump#Investigations of Russian election interference, even when I'm not logged in. Is that what you were intending to do by relisting? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Hatnotes are to be used for disambiguation and navigational purposes, not for giving particularly interesting related articles special prominence in an article. This is laid out in the relevant policy page, WP:Hatnote, I draw particular attention to point 3 of the 5 basic rules Mention other topics and articles only if there is a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind. Looking at the first usage of this template in the list of transclusions, Centimetre–gram–second system of units it is obvious that this is not a valid hatnote and should be removed - no reader searching for "Centimetre–gram–second system of units" or any of the terms that redirect there is actually going to have been intending to end up at Outline of the metric system - the link belongs in the "see also" section, not at the top of the page. There are also some usages of this template in see also sections, however this is against the manual of style, MOS:SEEALSO, which states that The section should be a bulleted list. For the handful of legitimate usages, ((hatnote)) can be used, it doesn't require a standalone template. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Linking to a chronological guide to a topic is a navigational purpose. The argument you laid out is also directed against ((Further)), which is a totally valid hatnote to add under relevant section headings. Thrakkx (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Editors should defer to official policies or guidelines when essays, information pages or template documentation pages are inconsistent with established community standards and principles." Moxy- 00:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This looks like a classic case of trying to fix something that "ain’t WP:BROKE". More importantly, the proposed remedy could introduce breakage rather than fix anything. I’ve seen two reasons for deletion: 1. template is unnecessarily redundant with ((See also)), ((further)) or ((hatnote)) and 2. hatnotes should be concise and the content of these templates are unnecessarily lengthy.
  1. Regarding redundancy with other templates: MOS:HATNOTE guides In most cases, hatnotes should be created using a standard hatnote template, [which] permits the form and structure of hatnotes to be changed uniformly across the encyclopedia as needed. Redirecting these templates to ((hatnote)) reduces the ability to maintain consistency across the encyclopedia as that text is fully supplied in the template call. Neither ((See also)) nor ((Further)) however, can be assured to accurately reflect all the cases where ((For timeline)) and ((For outline)) are used. One use of "For outline" seems to be in the "See also" section of very broad topics such as Database#See also and Epistemology#See also. Engineering#See also however uses ((Main)) for this purpose which, in this application, is arguably a better fit than the proposed redirect targets. The example can be debated of course but then that's the point: redirecting these templates supplants a specific solution with a generic one that could just as likely be a step backwards with no real benefit to the encyclopedia.
  2. Regarding conciseness: although these template use slightly more text than ((See also)) and ((Further)), readers actually read less of it. The stock text ("For a topical guide"/"For a chronological guide") immediately informs readers what type of content follows regardless of what text is part of the linked title; the reader doesn't even have to read it unless there's more than one topical guide or timeline listed. This approach is more effective — indeed more concise — than requiring readers to read through the entire hatnote. In the proposed redirects, both the uninformitive stock text and the linked title must be read before assessing the relevance of the hatnote. The independence of these templates also represents a significant improvement over lumping "outline" or "timeline" article titles with other linked titles in a single hatnote.

The only real benefit here seems to be a reduction in the number of templates. While that may have technical benefits, I'm having a really difficult time finding the encyclopedic value of removal. --N8_wilson 🔔 20:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

its about space as well. Why do these subset of articles need a hatenote that takes a full line. Why make our redaders scroll more? All these were taken out of the see also template with other pages to its own line as if its the most improtant see also....page after page now have an extra line just for these articles that have always been in dispute.Moxy- 00:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do these hatnotes need to be reduced to a partial line? The miniscule difference in space is not a compelling argument for overriding the decisions of local editors who already selected these templates over the proposed redirection targets. Reducing scroll distance is not a goal of Wikipedia. That just leads me back the assertion that there is nothing to fix by this proposal. --N8_wilson 🔔 12:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They were just added all over....making a new line for just these sub set of articles leading to WP:DUE problems Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. Why are these are articles being highlited over the others? And yes how readers navigate is a concern.. Which parts of an article do readers read Moxy- 16:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are being highlighted over the others because timeline and outline articles are in a drastically different format than the default article and list types. Thrakkx (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For these templates applying WP:NEUTRAL (of which WP:DUE is a part) feels a bit pedantic. Nonetheless, the change in wording from "See also"/"Further information" to "For a topical/chronological guide see" is strictly descriptive and not unduly weighted to any particular point-of-view. It remains neutral. As for relative placement, that is an article-scope decision; the proposed solution to redirect these templates cannot have any influence on prominence. I fail to see how WP:DUE applies here, let alone favors either course of action. --N8_wilson 🔔 21:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree main would be best for Engineering#See also....the original format. Moxy- 11:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- have to agree with N8wilson and WP:BROKE - it ain't. In addition, there may be other topics that fit under the topic at hand but are slightly different... and that's where being able to know where you're going just by looking - before clicking, comes in real handy. Hanyou23 (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's bad that things are done backwards here. Cleary no consensus for his existence to begin with. Now content editors are stuck fixing it's spamming all over. Moxy- 03:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Has there been? Hanyou23 (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per N8wilson. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:28, 12 July 2022 (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).