Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 March 12

delete, runners-up. Frietjes (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: just two links. Vestrian24Bio 10:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Merged-from

Template:Merged-from (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Copied (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Merged-from with Template:Copied.
{{copied}} has all the parameters {{Merged-from}} has (including a merge parameter for explicit language), allows multiple articles to be listed in a single banner, and includes more tracking parameters (to_diff, from_oldid, etc.). Could instead propose adopting all the features into merged-from, but seems redundant considering the good work that has gone into Module:Copied. Tule-hog (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge Merging and copying are distinct processes that should be kept separate. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this isn't merged, I suggest that from_oldid (source page from where merged material originated) and from_diff (source page before and after merge) and to_diff (target page before and after merge) be added to the merger template ; this would handle split-and-merge situations;;; The COPIED template should also accept a from_diff -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that COPIED needs a from _diff, as the article the material is copied from isn't altered by the act of copying. Sometimes the section copied will be cut as well, sometimes the entire "from" article will disappear, but it's not an integral part of the "COPIED" process. PamD 17:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the two templates end up merged, then from_diff would be useful for the split-and-merge process attributions. It is also useful for editors who prefer to use COPIED in all split/merge/copy actions -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, from_diff for split-to-newpage process -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There should also be a param to specify the permanent link to the discussion, if there was one. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merging templates. I have used both these templates in distinctly different situations. I use the Merged-from template and also Template:Afd-merged-from as well as the companion Merged-to in situations where an article has been redirected to another article, often because they have been proposed for deletion or merging. There is no need to identify which version of the article text was copied because it is generally obvious from the page history of the merging article when the redirection occurred and what the text of the original article was. Normally, when this happens the information in the original article is not copied, but rewritten to fit into the target article. In their existing format, these templates are easy to use. The Copied template is far more complex to use, and many editors do not use it properly. It only needs to be used where some text from one article is copied verbatim into another article. Wikipedia's attribution requirements then requires identifying the source and target versions in the articles concerned to be identified and these details should be added to the copied template. Technically, this also needs to be done in the edit history of the target article at the time of copying, for attribution reasons, but this is often not done well. (See WP:CWW) These talk page banners are really back-up notes to alert editors to the history of an article. So should be kept as simple as possible, or they won't be used properly, if at all. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: While the usage might be slightly different, it's communicating broadly the same information regarding article merges. I don't see why with the merging of parameters that this couldn't happen and it would clean up article talks which would be a doubleplus. TarnishedPath^talk 12:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Different meanings and usage. I am against this merger proposal. Cfls (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. They're separate templates because they have separate purposes with separate needed bases to cover in terms of licensing attribution. oknazevad (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose: {{copied}} and {{merged-from}} is different and per Cameron Dewe ROY is WAR Talk!
Support refactoring. A single underlying template (preferably using a Lua module) should contain the mechanics and so provide an improved path for future maintenance. {{Copied}} and {{Merged-from}} should exist as aliases which invoke the core template appropriately. — Hex • talk 11:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support refactoring per Hex. This is an implementation detail and implementers should be given descretion to make things under the hood efficient and easy to maintain. Tule-hog, was this your intent when you proposed this? Is there someone interested and able to make the changes? ~Kvng (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was the intent. A little suprised to see all the opposes, as it seemed to me a simple case of duplicated work.
From what I am gathering, the major opposing points:
1. copied is more complicated to use then merged-from
2. merging doesn't require attribution in the same way as copied
3. separate use-case means template should be kept separate
1 could be resolved by making the first two unnamed arguments of merged-from map to their corresponding arguments in copied. The additional arguments are optional. I am not sure I see the policy basis for the claim in 2 - besides, specific diffs are a helpful feature for tracking, especially in more complicated cases when merges don't blank the source page. 3 is already violated by copied, but perhaps it will be split as a result of this discussion. An issue could be the need to manually set |merge=yes, that might be resolved by rewriting merged-from to use Module:Copied and fix that argument. Tule-hog (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to add to your rationale to clarify that you're proposing a rewrite under the hood to power both templates, because lots of the comments so far seem to think you're suggesting a "Template:Merged or copied". — Hex • talk 11:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This TFD is indeed basically a proposal for Template:Merged or copied, with the expectation users would simply add the flag |merge=yes when merging. Seems consensus is largely against that, so I will pursue a separate proposal once this wraps up. Note Module:Copied already includes merge logic, so the future proposal will just be for altering {{merged-from}} to use it, no need to modify the module (or {{copied}}), at least as I see it. Tule-hog (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this would just make everything more confusing. This will make people use the template wrong even more than they have before. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Copying is not the same as Merging and if unified under a single template would require clarification at each use. I would not be against some of the tweaks proposed above, but the templates should remain distinct. Chrisdevelop (talk)
Oppose. Merging involves creative reworking unlike mechanical cut'n'paste. Personally, to maintain proper attribution and tracking the "blame" of "who did what", if I intend merging, first thing I do is verbatim copying (with proper notice), and only after that I start reshuffling. So technically, I would support deprecation of "merge", but I realize other people have other working habits --Altenmann >talk 20:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. {{Copied}} already has the |merge= flag and changes its formatting accordingly when the flag is used (see test case "Many" at Template:Copied/testcases). I don't think many of the oppose voters know that this flag is available and works quite well, as it should have been explained better in the nomination. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 03:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment: the flag is only useful "If copying was done in the process of merging two pages ... ". There is also a flag for the AfD process, yet it is not proposed to merge that template. Since the template already includes both merging circumstances where copying takes place, there should be no need to consider merging the {{Merged-from}} template as well because it does not accout for merging situations where text is not copied, but rewritten in different words. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, reduces the length of the list of maintenance templates. A merging template being nominated to be merged is quite ironic, isn’t it? — 𝟷.𝟸𝟻𝚔𝚖 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 14:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support refactoring per Hex. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 18:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should the refactoring proposal offered by Hex be considered instead?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToThAc (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my thoughts: Template:Copied already invokes Module:Copied, and the module already has merge logic (via the merge flag); thus as I see it, 'refactoring instead' would just be a modification for Template:Merged-from to invoke the module (fixing the merge flag). That is a much better solution than my original proposal, as {{merged-from|merge=yes}} is simply the worse alternative; apologies for dragging us through the WP:SNOW rather than just using the talk page and sandbox. Tule-hog (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both templates and rename to a less confusing title? because, the {{Copied}} is more efficient than the other. Vestrian24Bio 10:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hot Rod

Template:Hot Rod (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There's only one actual article about his works here, so this doesn't need to exist. Skyversay (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the only single had been redirected to the main article as well. Vestrian24Bio 10:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bold list

Template:Bold list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cslist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Bold list with Template:Cslist.
Both templates have similar usage. — TheThomanski | t | c | 16:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems reasonable, but is it straightforward to do? I'm not a Lua programmer, but if someone could work up a proof of concept at Module:cslist/sandbox that implements a |bold=yes option, that would be helpful to inform this discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jonesey95, I put something in the sandbox with results in Template:Cslist/testcases. Frietjes (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment, as far as I can tell {{bold list}} is only used in Template:HTML lists, so maybe just delete {{bold list}} instead? Frietjes (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no mainspace transclusions for {{Bold list}}, why bother merging.. Vestrian24Bio 10:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Elections in Alabama sidebar

Template:Elections in Alabama sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per the results on the Delware sidebar Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is currently no equivalent footer template on the wiki. LV ^{✉ ✎} 18:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to start a footer for this topic. LV ^{✉ ✎} 19:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sidebar templates for all states, there needs to be a centralized discussion, not a piece-meal one. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this should be discussed in a larger group for consensus of the use of a footer or sidebar, rather than one at a time. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neoauthoritarianism in China

Template:Neoauthoritarianism in China (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Neoauthoritarianism in China template should be deleted because it duplicates the Conservatism in China template, which already covers PRC conservatism since third opinion confirmed that "China" refers to the PRC. Guotaian (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong opposition and strong KEEP - A template to unite the 'pro-Beijing' political forces of Mainland China (PRC), Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan (ROC) is essential, and the "Neoauthoritarianism in China" template is currently in charge. ProKMT (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Neoauthoritarianism in China template is largely similar to the Conservatism in China template, which covers largely the same topics as the earlier template. Haruka Amaranth 08:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~If Guotaian promises never to remove non-Beijing camp conservatives (pro-ROC camp and conservative localists) from the "Template:Conservatism in Hong Kong", he may not oppose deletion.~~ ProKMT (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was canceled because it was a pure translation error. ProKMT (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Guotaian: response? it's lio! | talk | work 07:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if possible, weak support to merger. Neoauthoritarianism and Chinese conservativism are closely related but more importantly distinct enough to warrant different templates. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 09:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Neoauthoritarianism doesn't even has its own article or Merge with {{Conservatism in China}} is okay too. Vestrian24Bio 10:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Articles and templates are separate; {{Neoauthoritarianism in China}} are a myriad of elements that simply cannot be abbreviated to the {{Conservatism in China}}. ProKMT (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Clare Football Team 1991

Template:Clare Football Team 1991 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, just three players with articles The Banner talk 21:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now there are eight. Part of the problem with this template is that some links were pointing in the wrong direction, e.g. "Ciarán" instead of "Kieran", "Maloney" instead of "Moloney". I haven't time to check if there are others. The template is for an adult inter-county championship-winning team, so it is not a runner-up, not a children's competition, meets NENAN's "rule of five": are there presently at least five articles (not counting the primary article) on which your navbox will be used? (For instance, five books or films in a series; five singles or albums for a music article; five products by a common company; five members of a common group such as a band, comedy troupe, etc.), as referred to in this nomination, and the number of links has nearly trebled since this nomination was made. --Gaois (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner and WikiCleanerMan: Thoughts? ✗plicit 00:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So far I count six plus the manager. Rushing jobs are never a good idea as Kieran O'Mahony is an Augustinian friar and biblical scholar, not a footballer. Joe Joe Rouine is a 2 sentence article, with only one proper source. And Aidan Moloney... the way it is written the article suggests that he played for Kilmurry GAA (in Cork) while he played and managed Kilmurry Ibrickane GAA. The Banner talk 00:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are five more included since the nomination began. Did you count it wrong at the beginning? You wrote "just three players with articles". 3 + 5 = 8. I think. Unless they changed it recently. 7 or 8, either way it's half a team. It's more than the five recommended in the essay you relied on to explain why the template should be deleted.

O'Mahony is a footballer. It is not too difficult for anyone to notice the hatnote at the top of the Augustinian friar and biblical scholar if they have made it that far. And takes nothing to correct the link – which I must have overlooked as I concentrated instead on correcting the spelling of his name that I mentioned above.

Are you asking to rush to make articles longer because they are too short? Or advising that "rushing jobs are never a good idea"? Some articles don't have a single source, a problem that is everywhere on this website. What this has to do with the template under discussion I have absolutely no idea.

A source used for Aidan Moloney actually states "Kilmurry". Several times. While I understand that you are likely correct (it makes sense for a Clare footballer to play for Kilmurry Ibrickane, and I never suggested he went to Cork), at the same time I appear to have used a name which the club is known by in the media and in secondary sources. If a disambiguation problem is all that is left to disagree over, you are very welcome to use any personal local knowledge you have gathered from your 19 years of living in the area, and to correct any confusion I may have brought about by my efforts to follow WP:V. I promise not to be the one to revert it. Night night. :) --Gaois (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing you had to do regarding Moloney was look at the other sources. But with rushed jobs accuracy suffers. Have fun. The Banner talk 10:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's as if I had written the name of a completely different club, rather than a shortened version understood by readers of the local media. On the topic of rushed jobs leading to accuracy suffering, I've noticed several examples and am wondering how many more there are. Please be more careful. There is really no need to damage the templates on your way through. They are still being used until you nominate them. --Gaois (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep, seems the problem is being resolved. Frietjes (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, re-create after articles are created or could just draftify the template. Vestrian24Bio 09:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2007 NJCAA independents football records

Template:2007 NJCAA independents football records (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2008 NJCAA independents football records (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2015 NJCAA independents football records (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused NJCAA tables. Gonnym (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now apparently used on new drafts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as they are used in drafts that will in turn become articles. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not used in any mainspace articles; can be re-created when drafts are acceptable by AfC. Vestrian24Bio 09:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or, at minimum, draftify/userfy. Per Thetreesarespeakingtome, these template will soon be used in the mainspace. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gaelic football Team of the Century

Template:Gaelic football Team of the Century (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No article on the subject, not clear what this actually represents. Is this some kind of poll or fantasy team or something? Either way not a suitable subject for a navbox. --wooden superman 16:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: An article already existed on the subject (GAA Football Team of the Century) but there was no link in the navbox. I have made the necessary change to the navbox. --CorkMan (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still not an appropriate navbox, this is not an actual team, just the results of a poll from 40 years ago so it's not even relevant. This list itself may even be a WP:COPYVIO. --wooden superman 21:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could the same argument be made for this template - Template:World Team of the 20th Century - and it's corresponding article so? The GAA Football Team of the Century wasn't a poll. It was chosen by an adjudication panel of sportswriters, broadcasters and GAA officials. It remains the GAA's official Team of the Century. It is not just some random competition or poll in a newspaper. Therefore, I believe it should be kept.--CorkMan (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Banner talk 16:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sure does! Regardless of my highlighting of "other stuff", the point I made afterwards in the hope that it should be kept still stands.--CorkMan (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an actual award. Just a list from a sports organization. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the list (GAA Football Team of the Century) doesn't seems like it meets WP:GNG at all. Vestrian24Bio 04:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hammarby IF sections

Template:Hammarby IF sections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

In theory redundant to Template:Hammarby IF – two links, "Football Feeder (Men's)" and "Ice Hockey (historic)", may be added to the latter. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 September 9#Template:Djurgårdens IF sections. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's no actual rationale given for this at all, and Djurgårdens IF template was completely different and to be honest, the discussion was hastily closed with not much discussion at all. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominations are not based on theory. It is based on facts about the nominated template. The 2023 nomination was based on falsehood. These sidebars are not causing any issue with navigation nor violating any sidebar/template policy. It is navigating to links and articles that are related to one another. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete after adding any missing links to {{Hammarby IF}}. Frietjes (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]