Propose merging Template:Category link if exists 2 with Template:Category link if exists.
Version 2 grays out nonexistent categories; version 1 does not apply any styling to nonexistent categories. If there is really a need, we can add something like |gray=no. But I do not see a need: version 1 had three (3) transclusions (compared to 61,000 for v2), so there is clearly a lack of demand for the non-grayed functionality and I don't think it is worth the added complexity. For transparency, I did just indirectly remove two transclusions of v1 because they were substitutions from an old version of ((estcatCountry)) (diff1 and diff2), but that template should not have been substituted in those two instances. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Duplication of Template:Jimmy Carter. All links here are featured on Carter's main navbox. I can understand the the navbox being larger. But we don't need to create a navbox for every individual presidency. I would recommend trimming the main navbox because these U.S. presidents navboxes have gotten larger including every law they have signed during their terms. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Discussion of the template and other presidency vs. president biography templates is currently ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents#Presidency Navigation Templates vs. Biography Navigation Templates. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @WikiCleanerMan and Randy Kryn: As I've noted in the discussion at the WikiProject United States Presidents talk page, I believe there are serious content policy issues with the how the biography templates of U.S. presidents were before the creation of the separate navigation templates for their presidencies, specifically the WP:UNDUE and WP:NAVBOX policies. Contrary to the comments made by User:Randy Kryn, I am not including every bill signed into law by a president during a presidential administration and only the ones that have Wikipedia articles. If a law, executive order, regulation, or other public policy has a Wikipedia article that meets the requirements of the general notability policy (WP:N) and is related to a particular presidential administration, then that should be major enough for inclusion in a navigation template about the presidential administration because the WP:NAVBOX and WP:UNDUE policies explicitly require editors to not make judgments that certain topics related to a broader topic have greater importance than others when including them in a navigation template. In the absence of subject-specific notability guidelines, and if a law, executive order, regulation, or public policy does not meet the requirements of WP:N, it not supposed to have a Wikipedia article in the first place.
- Likewise, speeches and foreign policy summits that do not meet the requirements of WP:EVENT are not supposed to have Wikipedia articles either since they are events under the terms of that guideline. Before I created the separate template, there were only a selection of topics related to a presidential administration in the biography templates with a greater focus of foreign policy, state of the union addresses and other speeches, presidential inaugurations and transitions, and judicial appointments rather than domestic and economic policies. Criteria 4 of the WP:NAVBOX policy for good navigation templates requires that there that a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template exist, and not every President of United States (POTUS) has a separate articles about their presidency (i.e. William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and James A. Garfield). WP:NAVBOX also suggests that navigation templates are better for small and well-defined group of articles, which is why the I'd argue that only a link to the presidency article should be included a biography template for a POTUS should be included, and all other articles related to a presidency should be split into a separate template about the presidency. This would preclude duplication, and there wasn't any duplication until User:Randy Kryn reverted the templates to how they were before the Template:Presidency of Jimmy Carter navbox was created. WP:NAVBOX also does not ban templates with large numbers of links. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, this is an unneeded duplicate navbox of entries already present on the main Jimmy Carter nabox, and other duplicate navboxes have been created and entries removed (but reverted) from the individual navboxes. And yes, scores if not hundreds of tangential additions where the president is not mentioned in the article could be trimmed from presidential navboxes, which should not include every law that the president signed but only those which they initiated and/or worked to pass and were then semi-identified with them (LBJ's Voting Rights Act, FDR's New Deal legislation, etc.). This does not need additional discussion elsewhere, an obvious duplication of existing material. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find references to confirm these results Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions. Line 1, Ho Chi Minh City Metro uses ((RouteBox)). The city has only one and a half metro lines, so this template is probably not needed yet. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists. Created in April 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't you think it should be given more time for someone to use it, @Jonesey95. I don't see the need for these robotic nominations for well-documented and properly working templates and modules. Ponor (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Not robotic at all. I am ignoring or deciding not to nominate many unused templates when making these nominations. This one has been around for three months. That's long enough to have found at least one usage, or to be linked to from a discussion explaining why it is useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a general purpose template, to be used in other templates; a generalized version of Switch parser function. It won't be transcluded. Give it a year. Ponor (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and creator's own comments. Izno (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Izno, pardon me for asking: which comment of mine did you find in support of deletion? Further down there were templates made 3 to 9 years ago. What's the damage in keeping this one for a year or two? On another wiki I found some good use for it on some 12k pages; I or someone else might find it here too. Ponor (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No transclusions or incoming links from discussions to explain why it exists. Created in April 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox with no transclusions and no main article. This alleged award is not mentioned in any of the linked articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused Cycling data templates created 6 months ago for teams that don't have articles. Gonnym (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused as it has been commented out in Template:Infobox London station. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 7#Template:Tubeexits2010 for related deletions. Gonnym (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused as it has been commented out in Template:Infobox London station. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 7#Template:DLRexits2012 for related deletions. Gonnym (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Settlement infobox templates
[edit]Propose merging Template:Infobox country and Template:Infobox political division with Template:Infobox settlement.
This will be a controversial proposal, but I think ((Infobox political division)) should be merged into ((Infobox settlement)), while ((Infobox country)) should also be merged into, or at least become a wrapper for that template, because those three templates share many similar parameters with each other and because 'Template:Infobox political division' has the most parameters out of the three and is therefore the most flexible. I also think 'Template:Infobox settlement' should then be redesigned to look more like 'Template:Infobox country' does now, because the latter template looks much nicer in my opinion than the former one. PK2 (talk; contributions) 09:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Pls no....simply a nightmare for content editors ....we already have a problem with too many parameters that cause many edit wars. We have been going in the opposite direction to avoid problems like with Template:Infobox micronation. Moxy🍁 12:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Slight oppose @Moxy: Personally, I don't want the country infobox to be merged with the infobox for settlements. I have a more moderate proposal. How about merging Template:Infobox settlement with Template:Infobox political division? Perhaps Template:Infobox former subdivision could be considered for merging as well? Let just leave Template:Infobox country as it is for now. RyanW1995 (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No and close this now: Per Moxy's reasoning. This seems like unnecessary change just for wanting to have change. We should also be discussing these things with such highly-used templates elsewhere first before directing every single person on an article about a country or settlement here. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No - for the reason Moxy has stated.
- GeographicAccountant (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, for reasons previously mentioned and because not all human settlements are political divisions, thereby creating confusion. An Errant Knight (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, as per all above. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 13:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Too many parameters already, as Moxy stated. Cedar Tree 14:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- God no - For all the above reasons. Don't try to fix what's not broken. EmilePersaud (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose, per reasons above, too many parameters ⇒ Zhing-Za, they/them, 16:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Keep how it is. As per reasons stated above by editor Moxy. Nubia86 (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, these large super flexible templates end up not working well due to the human desire to fill gaps, which unused parameters appear to be. The country infobox as it stands faces the occasional issue of people using the website parameter which is meant to be for international organisations. CMD (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as largely unnecessary, described above. Country, political division, and settlement may not control an equal amount of territory and may have very distinct laws. HarukaAmaranth 13:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Q: Why must the first text line of every U.S. article suffer unsightly broken type just to "discuss" this template format change? It's ridiculous. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am wondering the same. Absolutely uncalled for in my opinion. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per all above. There is no benefit to readers or editors from merging. Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, this is nonsens, and it would break any efforts towards easier translations and the development of the translation tool. Isn't it enough that in similar way it won't be possible anymore using the translation tool for almost every country in the world because all(?) or at least most other language versions have infoboxes on a country base. Very sad that that thrive wasn't stopped earliert. What a pity of time wasted. --Matthiasb (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, and snow close this discussion. Cambalachero (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No + WP:SNOW. NLeeuw (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as stated above it is not needed. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No per all the above. Since we are strongly in agreement, can we just close this now to remove the message? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 17:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NENAN after the season articles were merged (three links, two bar the header). -- Alex_21 TALK 00:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template with no transclusions that has been marked as deprecated since 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2018 TfD says that "a soft redirect in a module is not possible". That's not true anymore. require('Module:Module wikitext')._addText('((soft redirect|Module:Citation/CS1))') would do exactly that. I'm not saying the closer made a mistake; Module:Module wikitext was created two years after the TfD, but that doesn't mean we can't reevaluate the close since things have changed now. Nickps (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Pinging @Trappist the monk since their comment on RfD brought the module to my attention. Nickps (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, that
require() doesn't work. I don't know why and I'm not going to take the time to figure it out. Currently, if Module:Citation is invoked you get:
((#invoke:Citation|citation))
- Lua error in Module:Citation at line 1: This module is retained for historical and structural reasons; consider using Module:Citation/CS1..
- I think that error message appropriate. Readers should never see it but editors will if they are doing something that they ought not do (and are paying attention ...).
- If we want to 'soft redirect' Module:Citation can't we just add
((soft redirect|Module:Citation/CS1)) to someplace in Module:Citation/doc and be done?
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That require doesn't work because it just redirects the page. If you add a second line that says
return require [[Module:Citation/CS1]] under it, then the module will be functional too. Nickps (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've edited Module:Sandbox/Nickps to demonstrate. ((#invoke:Sandbox/Nickps|citation)) gives Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150: attempt to concatenate a nil value. which doesn't look too promising at first but it's the same error as ((#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation)): Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150: attempt to concatenate a nil value. which means the redirect is working. Nickps (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I just pushed the change to Module:Citation directly as a proof of concept. It can always be reverted later. Nickps (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What is it that I am not understanding? You get the Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 4150 error message because of line 2 at Module:Citation (permalink). It is not obvious that line 1 (permalink) is doing anything that we want. If, as WP:SOFTREDIR says,
Soft redirects differ in that they leave the reader on the redirect page
that isn't happening because line 2 is pretty much the equivalent of a hard redirect. So tell me, what it is that you are attempting to accomplish with your edit? That edit puts the soft redirect outside of the module documentation. Wouldn't it be better to add ((soft redirect)) to the ~/doc page?
- Part of my misunderstanding was that I expected an invoke of Module:Citation to do nothing but put up a soft redirect annotation and halt as WP:SOFTREDIR sort of suggests that it should. The soft redirect annotation is for direct wikilinks (
[[Module:Citation]] → Module:Citation). That being the case, I see no benefit to be gained by using the module to create the soft redirect annotation when the same can be accomplished by including ((soft redirect)) in the ~/doc page.
- Just what am I missing?
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I'm confused. If you open Module:Citation you're left at the redirect page. So by the definition you provide, that's a soft redirect. I don't see how a redirect being soft or hard has anything to do with what it does when transcluded. Now, we could move the soft redirect template to the documentation page, although that would require changing the second line (then only line) to
return require('Module:Citation/CS1') to avoid creating a hard redirect. Or, we could avoid this entire conversation and go with Pppery's suggestion of making a hard redirect. Nickps (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If it must be a redirect, let it be a hard redirect or (my preference) leave it as it was and delete
((Citation/lua)) as unused/unnecessary. And then let us be done with this.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed on a hard redirect being better than a soft one. Nickps (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a link to the previous TfD. Nickps (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it's marked historical, that's sufficient. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ideally we would move Module:Citation/CS1 to this title - there's no reason things are the way they are other then history. Otherwise just hard redirect now that hard redirects are possible - there's no reason for a soft redirect which would deliberately get in all possible users' way. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm in favor of simple and full deletion, without particular prejudice in this discussion about the location of Module:Citation/CS1. Beforehand, probably the minimum regardless that needs to happen is a history merge for everything that ended up in Module:Citation/CS1, which I'd guess is everything up to the neat cutoff point that Dragons flight made obvious (the diff). (Well, IMO, Module:Citation/CS1 is probably better located at Module:Citation Style 1 [or Module:Citation Style 1 and 2] than anywhere else, since CS1 is not an atomically-named title and the reason for it presently living at a subpage is that Module:Citation could reasonably hold a whole bunch of differently named things in its subspace (see e.g. the Module:Cite LSA discussion elsewhere....) Izno (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]