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 no consensus with no prejudice for further discussion. I appreciate that previous closing remarks have been taken into consideration before opening this discussion, but there are still some concerns about the implementation and whether the methodologies set out by the nominator are "the best." At this point it is clear that TFD is not the best venue to actually discuss the implementation of a merger like this, so I strongly encourage both sides of this discussion to take the matter to the talk page(s) of the modules in question and hash it out further. In doing so, I hope that both sides can come to a compromise. If and only if this discussion reaches absolute loggerheads should these templates be brought back to TFD for community review; otherwise, a local consensus will have been reached and TFD will not be necessary to implement any decision reached. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly duplicate modules, sharing the core component of taking an unlimited number of parameters from template arguments and converting them into a list using Module:Hatnote list. All of the other features are frills that could easily be implemented in Wikitext. I've written a merged module at Module:Sandbox/pppery/sentence list hatnote (distinguishing this from the previous TfD, when no merged module was available), and written templates that use it in Template:About-distinguish/sandbox, Template:Distinguish/sandbox and Template:Main list/sandbox. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CommentModule:Cat main is intentionally excluded from this nomination, because (a) it has several unique features like bolding the title and (b) there was some talk about making it not a hatnote at all. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. I'm in favor of consolidating code like this whenever practical to do so. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 06:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support merger in principle, oppose current implementation - instead of writing the the actual text hatnote in the template and having all templates access the same module entry point, create a different entry point for each different style (then continue the code as normal, with all entry points accessing the list() function). As I've commented in a previous discussion, if we go with a module design pattern, then keep all the code there. --Gonnym (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I deliberately modeled my code in Module:Sandbox/pppery/sentence list hatnote after Module:Labelled list hatnote, which similarly takes all its arguments from wikitext. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that is indeed the already used practice, then I don't oppose that anymore. Question, I looked at the code in Module:Labelled list hatnote and am wondering why does your module code copy so much of that code, instead of letting the Labelled list module handle it? Is there a reason I'm missing why it can't handle it? --Gonnym (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing. Well, in that case there is not a lot to do. It's very silly to duplicate over 90% of a module, but it seems that there is no other way. --Gonnym (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to propose a merge of the two modules after this discussion concludes (I would support it). ((3x|p))ery (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that you took me too literally on that; there's obviously enough commonality between the two to propose an expansion that would reuse most of the code directly in a DRY manner by refactoring monolithic code into separate functions. I opposed the July 5 one on the grounds that it didn't make sense to bloat Module:Labelled list hatnote to support ((Distinguish)) alone, but I did explicitly mention the possibility of rearranging the module structure to accommodate the idea. ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 07:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Specifically, I oppose the implementation for ((about-distinguish)) that puts its Wikidata functionality in wikitext, because I oppose splitting template logic between modules and wikitext. It's one thing to supply simple text labels on the wikitext side, and quite another to supply conditionals; it's a needlessly confusing practice. I would suggest instead a simple "wrapper" module that added these conditionals by injecting their result into the input of the main function. The rest is okay I guess but could use a bit of tweaking; I haven't looked over it as thoroughly as I probably should.
More generally, and let me make it unequivocally clear this time: Pppery, I find your practice of introducing template changes through TfD to be unwiki and unconducive to collaboration with you. I find it stressful to see nothing for some time, then be pinged on a TfD where I must—as a result of the format—argue these changes pass/fail rather than talking through the merits of different approaches. Please, use the talk pages and talk about your plans (and I'd appreciate if you ping me there), so I and others can comment and work with you rather than this adversarial-feeling approach. ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 07:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't fully understand all the issues here but seeing some concern and controversy over how this is being handled. Recommend best worked out in a talk page discussion where ideas can be hashed out among stake holders, then implemented and finally the formality of a TfD. -- GreenC 15:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nihiltres in full. --Izno (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2019 (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 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).
No article on the subject. Not a suitable intersection for a navbox. Might be more suited to a category, if it doesn't break WP:OC rules. If it is kept, only the people should remain, not all the superfluous information, which is not suited to navboxes. --woodensuperman 16:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, as the creator (but that's neither here nor there) I felt that, since there is already a template for the 12 people who walked on the Moon, the 12 poor non-historic souls who just got to circle it should have a scrap or two. And yeah, the "superflouous information" - the links to the only nineMoonmissions that the human race has traveled on - may be tangential and little-known outside of their families and friends. Since we are now in the 50-year anniversary cycle of the Moon landings, and silly editors, unaware that few find them important, have been diligently working on all aspects of every Apollo mission, I somehow thought that such a template would be appreciated. But alas, a scent of deletion leads this template, which is so 1968 to 1972, to the edge of the happy hunting ground. But wait...a little voice asks "How about combining both templates?" so I'll mock one up (and speaking as a space buff and historian, it really looks beautiful). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kees08. Did you see the merged template mock-up I worked up, linked in the last sentence in my comment. I'd better highlight it. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that you saw it, what do you think of the merge? Randy Kryn (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is fine with me. Changed vote. Kees08 (Talk) 05:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is no need for the Apollo astronauts to be split up, having been on most of the same missions. I endorse Randy Kryn's combined template which looks terrific. Reywas92Talk 04:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - if you plan to keep the bottom row then a different name should be considered or remove that row. The template also overlinks to the Apollo missions which it really shouldn't even link to as those articles don't have this template so the links aren't WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. If merged per Andy's suggestion with ((Apollo program)), both issues should be fixed. --Gonnym (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed 'Moon landings' from below, as it is a bit too tangential. The others in 'below' are closely related and directly relevant to the Apollo Moon travelers, as they consist of their vehicles and program, and the Moon walkers template are on those pages. The merge I suggested was to merge the Moon walkers and Moon travelers template as shown by the link in my rambling comment, as these individuals and their deeds are important enough to continue to exist as a separate template and not be merged, and a bit lost, in the overall Apollo program template. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Randy's template; no real reason to split up the walked and didn't-walk astronauts, since the number of flying-to-the-Moon astronauts is small enough to fix easily on one template. Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slighty-Agree-Merge Randy's conceit gets it right, and encourages the reader/user to learn of the related personnel. It's also a good way to deal with possible "template-bloat". That said, I do have a reasonable gut-feeling that the 12 moonwalkers deserve their own thing on general principles. MinnesotanUser (talk) 06:00, 12 March 2019 (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 D&D creature
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 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 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. The initial concerns of the nominator, that the templates are unused and fail ACCESS, have been addressed, leaving only the comments and opinions of those involved in the discussion. An argument about WP:NAVBOX concerns (specifically #4) was presented and debated but neither side seems to have "won" that point (noting that it is a guideline and only "should' be followed). The next concern was whether these provide useful navigation, which traditionally has been a major point for navboxes being brought to TFD. Despite a month listing here, as well as a parallel discussion at WT:NFL (mainly discussing the ACCESS issue), there were no significant rebuttals to the idea that these templates were not strictly necessary, with the most compelling argument being that these players often do not end up staying with the team to which they were drafted. As an administrative note, there were concerns that this nomination could be used to set a precedent to delete all similar templates in this field, but since this nomination was (originally) about the templates not being used I do not see this as setting a precedent for future discussions on the overarching category. Primefac (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to delete per nom and WP:NOTALMANAC, and unused. Ping to Trut-h-urts man and Yankees10 who created these templates and might be able to shed light on how they are used. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems at least most of these are unused. The templates themself are a problematic though. The years link to other templates, not articles, and the color scheme makes it hard to actually see what is a link and what is a red link. I'm also inclined to delete. --Gonnym (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All of the navboxes should be linked to the pages of the drafted players so I find the claim that they are only linked to each other highly dubious take how the 1998 navbox links to Peyton Manning.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I just went and clicked through on one of them (Template:Colts2008DraftPicks). It is fully linked on all 9 player pages, so to say that all of these navboxes are unused is false. If there are ones that have not been fully deployed on player pages, that is a fixable issue. I have been going through and trying to make sure they are all used, but that will take a while because of the sheer number of boxes that have been sent to TfD here. As far as this entire class of navboxes as a concept, a broader discussion would have to take place at WT:NFL before we should be taking any action there. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All of these templates are now fully used. Additionally, any WP:ACCESS concerns that may exist here actually involve a different template, not this one. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Fails WP:NAVBOX item 4: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.. For example, ((Colts2018DraftPicks)) has no dedicated article, but is a subset of the content at 2018 NFL Draft and 2018 Indianapolis Colts season. Also fails WP:NAVBOX item 5: If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles. A better argument could be made for something more distinguishing like List of Indianapolis Colts first-round draft picks. This is WP:NAVBOXCREEP.—Bagumba (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See, I have the exact opposite opinion. I really don't see anything special or particularly distinguishing about being a first-round draft pick (as opposed to being drafted in any other round), and I'm not sure why we ever started generating navboxes based upon that particular distinction in the first place. These navboxes show all of the players who were drafted in the same draft class by the Colts in any given year, which, to me, is a much more useful grouping. I would argue that 2018 Indianapolis Colts season is the article that would satisfy WP:NAVBOX #4. As for WP:NAVBOX #5, I would argue that Template:ColtsFirstPick fails that one much more so than Template:Colts2018DraftPicks does. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
re: NAVBOX #4, the fact that we need to "argue" about whether it is met by an article named different than the navbox is my usually tip-off of NAVBOXCREEP. I expect it to be obvious, otherwise someone is just churning out cross sections.—Bagumba (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
re: the first round picks, my point is that it more obviously meets NAVBOX #4. I wasn't necessarily saying I would keep that either (and that would be for another TfD anyways).—Bagumba (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, navboxes in active or potential use, editorial decision for editors of the relevant articles whether these should be used or not. —Kusma (t·c) 14:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma:editorial decision for editors of the relevant articles whether these should be used or not If we always kept and left it up to editorial decision to use or not, we would never delete any templates; but that is not how TfD generally works. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something?—Bagumba (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: My point is if somebody wants to use these navboxes on their articles, let them. I don't see an advantage in deleting these templates (and I know that TFD habitually deletes lots of things that could just be left alone, unlike most other XfDs). I don't have the subject knowledge to understand why someone would want to use the boxes, so I leave that to the experts. —Kusma (t·c) 19:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Their articles? And here I was thinking that articles belong to no one and are a community effort, and if the community decides that a specific template has no place on an article, that decision should be accepted. --Gonnym (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is navigational overkill, especially since a number of those drafted don't even end up playing for the team and those selected the same year is not the strongest connection to other players. Reywas92Talk 01:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Reywas92 and Bagumba and Tom (LT), clearly over navboxing. Frietjes (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2019 (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).
UKBot
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).
Comment: As the creator, I need to maintain an English version of the templates anyways since I cannot translate them directly from Norwegian to Basque and Finnish. Of course I can keep the English version somewhere else, but it's quite convenient to keep them here since they are then interwiki-linked, the documentation is easily readable, and it comes with the bonus that the bot can easily be enabled at English Wikipedia if anyone's interested in using it for article contents here. – Danmichaelo (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Danmichaelo. See no reason to disrupt things. -- GreenC 14:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Danmichaelo, no clear advantages to deletion, downsides for one user. —Kusma (t·c) 14:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the BRFA for this bot? --Izno (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Btw. the contest mentioned in the BRFA was run from fiwiki instead in the end. – Danmichaelo (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2019 (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).
