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).
Propose merging Template:Great Recession sidebar with Template:Great Recession series.
Covers the same topics and an additional 8 links shouldn't cause too much grief in the merge target. Izno (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2023 (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:Sotetsu and Tokyu Shin Yokohama Lines
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 delete. Izno (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't deprecate navigation templates. If this should be replaced with Template:Tokyu Shin-yokohama Line then it should be replaced and deleted. If it shouldn't, then the deprecation notice should be removed. Gonnym (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2023 (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).
Delete The template titled with new and revert the depreciation on the original template. This is going backward. If the original template has been phased out then it should be deleted even with the "new" infobox as they would recreating something that isn't needed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis is aThe new template was started when ((Infobox medical condition)) was revamped and ((medical resources)) created. Consensus of WP:MED was that the medical infoboxes should be understandable by lay readers – the argument made at the time being that classification data is of interest to a subset of the small number of readers who even understand what the codes are for. I will post a notification over at WP:MED, however, several of the proponents that led the charge on this have left the project; if not Wikipedia altogether. <aside>I'm not sure why surgical classification information was not made part of the resources template, but I'll try to sandbox something pending the outcome of this TfD.</aside> Little pob (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have posted over at WP:MED, and have sandboxed changes at the med recs template (should it be decided that the newer template is the one to be retained). Little pob (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The deprecated template places external links inside infobox, but according to the WP:ELPOINTS they should be placed in external links section. Placing those external links inside infobox is useless, as most of readers doesn't understand their meaning and they aren't some kind of official sites for the topic. So deprecation was absolutely correct. Those templates aren't compatible, that's why one of them was marked as deprecated but not nominated for deletion. D6194c-1cc (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to you both. If you want to remove unwanted parameters from an infobox, you just edit the infobox template directly. There is no reason to create a new template for that. The same goes for adding/modifying parameters. Gonnym (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An empty infobox with deleted parameters in a lot of articles is rather a bad way of doing things. But with cleaning by bots it might be archieved. Also, old versions of articles will display incorrect template (which is also true for redirects after "deletion" of deprecated template). But it's not the case if displayed data is automatically loaded from Wikidata. So deprecating vs redirect is controversial and depends on concrete issues. D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@D6194c-1cc, did you read ELPOINTS before linking to it? Specifically, did you read the phrase that says "and in the appropriate location within an infobox"? External links have always been permitted in infoboxes. Consider BAE Systems and Cracker Barrel: They are both FAs, and they both contain two external links in their infoboxes. Hydrochloric acid is an FA with six external links in the infobox; Acetic acid is an FA with 15 external links in the infobox. You and I might have our own opinions about how useful these links are to the average reader, but there has never been a rule against it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The full quotation of theWP:ELPOINTS is "in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable". Infoboxes are more related to article body. Most of those codes like from chemistry articles can be moved to the external links section. They just overload infoboxes. For example, we do not place links to popular encyclopedias directly into infoboxes. Some links like official sites are relevant. As I think if the link is useful to ordinary reader it can be placed into the infobox, otherwise its place is in external links section. D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they can be merged easily, without breaking any of the existing articles, then I think that's fine. I'd be happy with the new one replacing the old one wholesale, but there are only about ~50 articles using the new one, and there are ~1,500 using the old one. I don't want 1,500 articles with bad formatting (or hidden/lost information), and I don't see anyone volunteering to convert 1,500 articles from the single-old-infobox system into the new two-template system. And if they can't be merged easily (e.g., if the new one uses the same parameter name as the old one, but to do something different), then this probably is going to have to sit around in its current state until someone decides that it's worth their time to convert 1,500 articles. I'd expect that to take at least two weeks of full-time effort. (Maybe it's something to ask about at Wikipedia:Bot requests.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although the name of the new template is worse than the old one, and without merging them the problem of the name will persist. D6194c-1cc (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few bots and editors that can help (and do help) with these sort of things. For example @Primefac (if available) has a bot that is approved to handle removal of deprecated parameters. Additionally, you can always ask at WP:BOTREQ. Gonnym (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Always happy to help out. If anyone in this discussion has questions about implementation feel free to ping me somewhere. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2023 (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:Secretariat of the Communist Party of Vietnam ordinal category
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 delete. Izno (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of you know how to fix it? Because if you do we don't need to delete it. If so that would be great since then I could create similar templates for the Yugoslav, Chinese, Soviet and ruling communist counterparts.--TheUzbek (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the only thing you need is navigation then ((Navseasoncats)) is what you want for both templates. Gonnym (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: I may be stupid, but using that template I don't get how I'll fix the problem. Because ut would still be red at Category:4th Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam since the 3rd category is titled Workers' Party and not Communist Party. Or am I wrong? --TheUzbek (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At Template:Navseasoncats/doc#Work-arounds it explains what to do if the name changes. Basically you create category redirects with the names that are needed for the 3rd and 4th links to work. Gonnym (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: Lovely, I understand it now! Thank you very much :) --TheUzbek (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2023 (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:Search for horizontal expanded
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 userfy. Izno (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. Template:Talk header has "find sources" links. If any of these links are missing from there and needed, that should probably be brought up at that template. There are other templates in this set which are used and which should also probably be replaced with the talk header. Gonnym (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2023 (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:Scrolling TOC
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 delete. Izno (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2023 (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:Section of
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 delete. Izno (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2023 (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:Unconfirmed
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 delete. Izno (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2023 (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 Clementine (The Walking Dead)
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 delete. Izno (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An infobox template created for a single character and which was removed from the article a few minutes later. This isn't an appropriate use of an infobox template. Gonnym (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2023 (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).
Platform Layout templates
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 delete. ✗plicit 11:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion per nomination. Then there's the issue of completely breaking MOS:ACCESSIBILITY making it impossible for screen readers to parse the information, and serious MOS:CONTRAST issues through the use of coloured text. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments in the linked discussion. Mackensen(talk) 13:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous consensus (over several years) at WT:RAIL, also for being misleading and WP:NOTGUIDE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ThryduulfAlso delete the instances of these that are not technically templates is solely in the realm of applicable guidelines and editorial discretion where those don't exist. That's something that needs no adjudication at TFD. (If there is a specific guideline on the point, perhaps some MOS:TRANSPORT, that would be best to cite in removal; otherwise, one could probably cite WP:ACCESS if nothing else, as was done here.) Izno (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2023 (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).
Sonic the Hedgehog navigation boxes
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 keep. Izno (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The original reason for splitting the navigation boxes (see this and this) seems to be that the box is too large and to prevent bloat. However the splitted boxes posed other problems that would hurt navigation. I've started a Draft template of the merged navbox to test how it can work better if Sonic the Hedgehog articles links were merged back.
The summary of problems with the templates in the current split state:
The templates were separated by the range of topics, and each of the sub-template were named in the way that would hinder potential expansion. E.g. expanding Template:Sonic the Hedgehog characters to cover every article about Sonic the Hedgehog universe (fictional locations, items etc. in addition to characters).
Some of Sonic the Hedgehog "video game", "character" and "other media" topics cross-reference each other, and yet the wikilinks to the articles were forced to separate because of the split template structure, which could hurt users find relevant topics as well. Examples: (a) Shadow the Hedgehog (video game) features the title character, and it is often that a reader would look for the game after the character and vice versa, and (b) Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric is a video game based on Sonic Boom (TV series), and readers would like to navigate between each other article through the navigation box. The current split structure required the reader to jump two hyperlinks instead of one if using the navbox.
My opinion is that the split was badly done in the first place. While I can see the merit of Template:Unofficial Sonic the Hedgehog media being separated from other Sonic article links, the other 3 navboxes should be merged together. Explorer09 (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(The reasons was updated to summarize the points, as well as provide a link to the template draft for potential future improvement to the merged template.) Explorer09 (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nomination. More navboxes are not the solution when only one can do. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the main template is massive, and only going to get larger. It's overwhelming and difficult to keep readable as is. Sergecross73msg me 01:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I got the merged template idea from a similar video game template Template:Street Fighter, there the collapsible boxes worked pretty well. Explorer09 (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've maintained the Sonic template since well before it was split up for readability. This wasn't some flippant bold move, we had discussions and found a consensus to split. Sergecross73msg me 12:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - for as long as this series goes on, the main template will just get bigger. Instead, links to the rest of the navboxes at the top of the "main" one should do. Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think the template being "too big" is a good reason to split. Besides, the current way of splitting the boxes makes it awful to navigate between Sonic topics. If you are comparing this to Mario franchise templates, the latter are separated by the sub-series (or by game genre), not by range of topics. E.g. Template:Super Mario even lists the movies and TV adaptations despite the template is mainly about video games. With the Sonic templates in the current state, I would be unable to relate a TV adaptation from a video game. The "related games" section is also messy: what determines that a related game be listed under Template:Sonic the Hedgehog or Template:Unofficial Sonic the Hedgehog media? The criteria are not clear cut. Explorer09 (talk) 07:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We split the template for the precise reason that it was getting too big to navigate comfortably. It's only going to get bigger and bigger as time goes on, and it's not unlike how the Template:Mario franchise has a bunch of sub-templates to avoid bloat. JOEBRO64 13:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The split state of the templates is now preventing me from improving the each of the templates further, so I started a Draft template here for the merged navbox. I wanted to improve the box to aid navigation for the readers, which would concern things other than the size of the box. The main purpose of the navboxes are to aid readers find related topics of an article, and the relations of articles are what counts. By the way, your way of splitting the templates (by range of topics) works in a Fandom site -- it's just not ideal for Wikipedia. Explorer09 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. Joe and I have maintained these templates for ages, and we have done so in the name of readability and navigation. We just have different opinions than you on how to achieve that. Sergecross73msg me 19:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. You didn't show any argument besides the size of the template, and that argument is the one I disagree with (size is not an issue for any Wikipedia page)
2. My question is whether splitting the templates would actually benefit the reader in terms of navigating related topics. And I see no arguments on this perspective.
3. Splitting the templates would make sense if there are Sonic the Hedgehog articles distant from other Sonic the Hedgehog topics in terms of relations. But I don't think that's the case here (examples are given above when a "video game" and "character" articles relate together, and a "video game" and "other media" articles relate together).
4. Because the fragmented state of the templates hinders my processes of further improving them, I chose to make a bold edit (WP:BOLD) before trying a lengthy discussion just to decide whether the pages should be merged. The best way to show a merged proposal was just make the edit right away (so other people can see how the merged version would work better). Explorer09 (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your entire argument operates on the assumption that SIZESPLITs are invalid...and they're not. They're common place. For example, decade spanning musical artists often have separate templates for singles and albums when they've got a lot of each. Sergecross73msg me 10:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are there example templates of what you are talking about? Explorer09 (talk) 05:58, 16 June 2023 (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).