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 infobox is for a one-hit-wonder band and links to 4 articles. (Used to be 5 but a merge discussion for the band's article to be merged to its only single got approved a few weeks ago.)
I understand this was created for great intentions as it links to the associated artists but at the same time Template:Daft Punk covers the same aspect. I would hope for more from the band but c'est la vie. – The Grid (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a notable band. Aasim 07:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only three articles of directly-related content. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:09, 25 August 2020 (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:Tundenny Graphic Suite
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).
Template:Ethnic Omaha sidebar
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).
Above template duplicates identical coverage of navbox Template:Ethnicity in Omaha. However, the later navbox template has more content. Mitchumch (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. the navbox is more complete and doesn't take up valuable room in prose-space. Frietjes (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2020 (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).
The result of the discussion was Delete -FASTILY 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: G6; uncontroversial move. Aasim 07:30, 25 August 2020 (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).
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Primefac (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. They have different uses. Although, I guess there could be a unified template, it would need to be specifically designed to be usable everywhere, not just a merge of the two. I cannot see both the parent page and the archive both using one template or the other. --Diriector_Doc├─────┤TalkContribs 17:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The big difference here is that ((Automatic archive navigator)) has navigation links to other archives (example at Talk:European Union/Archive 14) while ((Archive)) does not. I think that navigation links makes a lot of sense on all archives and it would be beneficial if they were present on almost all archive pages. That being said significant changes to appearances are always a bit tricky and there are pages where navigation is provided by a template such as ((Month-year archive nav)) (example at User talk:Jun.rhee/June 2012). Even though this will only be a tiny fraction of a percent I think some checking should be done before redirecting and an option to disable the navigation in ((aan)) should be added for cases like this. Final name should be ((Archive)) since that is much more concise and a better name for what is starting to become the universal archive header. The concerns about talk and non-talk archives can be solved perfectly using namespace detection and would fix all the "misuses" where ((aan)) is used at non-talk pages and allow for better text. It is also worth noting that ((Archive)) already uses namespace detection and can be used for both talk and non-talk archives without any issues following this recent TfD. --Trialpears (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the only reason, I'm sure that can be handled by a bot or AWB. Gonnym (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...Probably not. For one, when I say "...these templates have no consistent pattern of where the are on each page...", I mean I've seen transclusions of ((Archive)) above ((Archive navigation)), transclusion of ((Archive)) below ((Archive navigation)), transclusion of the two aforementioned templates many line breaks apart from each other, and even the transclusion of ((Archive)) at the top of the page and ((Archive navigation)) at the bottom of the page without ((Archive)) anywhere near it ... meaning it would be difficult to use a bot to replace these transclusions due to so many random variations. It's almost like the use of these two templates (as well as ((Archive nav)) [which the fact that its name is so similar to ((Archive navigation)) is rather confusing]) had no set layout which they were supposed to be used, and the editors who placed them just did whatever. Also, here's the kicker: ((Archive navigation))has to use a forced "1=" parameter to tell it which page it is on so that it functions properly (whereas ((Automatic archive navigator)) does not). What this means is that there have been some uses of ((Archive navigation)) which could be completely broken if replaced with ((Automatic archive navigator)); an example would be someone archiving by year, which ((Automatic archive navigator)) does not do automatically ... since if the respective "/Archive 1" page does not exist, it doesn't display any archive links. So, the only efficient way I have determined in which to "fix" the transclusions of ((Archive navigation)) is to replace them manually (and I mean replace ((Archive)) and ((Archive navigation)) with ((Automatic archive navigator)) whenever applicable ... which I've been doing off-and-on for a few years now) since any other method seems to have too high of a risk of breaking pages. Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand but I still believe it's possible. I've seen hard(er?) conversions and replacements done by editors before and this does not seem that hard. Also, if the issue is with ((Archive navigation)) and ((Archive nav)), those only have 6485 and 759 transclusions which makes the replacement process even easier as the vast majority of uses of ((Archive)) don't have these. --Gonnym (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: Okay, I just thought of something. If a bot does update pages that contain transclusions of both ((Archive)) and ((Archive navigation)) if this merge request is approved, to help facilitate such a merge, a bot could remove all transclusions of ((Archive navigation)) from such pages when only 1) the "1= parameter is both a numerical value that is less than 2000 (for transclusions of ((Archive navigation)) that are used to navigate through years), and 2) the respective "/Archive 1" page exists. That should at least help reduce the amount of false positives that could break pages. (I still "oppose" for the reason I originally stated, but I think this would be a start at reducing collateral damage.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked into the code, but I trust you. That could help and then we'll be able to see how we can handle the remaining usages and clean those up. --Gonnym (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Based on Steel1943 comment above, I think it's time we fixed this mess. There are just too many duplicate templates doing the same thing, which end up in a layout mess. Yes, this might be hard to do, but that's not a reason not to, even if it takes a bit longer than what is typical here. --Gonnym (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per WP:CONSOLIDATE, this is something we ought to try to do, and per the discussion above, it looks technically feasible. ((u|Sdkb))talk 00:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge: I think we should have the choice to determine how we want our archives to appear to viewers. For big archives it may make sense to use automatic archive navigator. For small archives, it may make sense to use talkarchive. Keeping them separate gives a bit more flexibility as to what template we want to use. Merging them doesn't. Aasim 15:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, these two templates are distinct enough for both of them to be useful unmerged. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2020 (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).
The result of the discussion was redirect to Template:Tlc. As a note, there is no prejudice against nominator performing any sort of maintenance/checks on extant transclusions to ensure they are using the correct template. Primefac (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose mergingTemplate:Tld with Template:Tlc.
Tld and Tlc both produce a similar looking result today, but at the time they were separately created, they were distinct: Tlc utilized the "code" HTML tag, while Tld utilized the "tt" HTML tag. In 2012, apparently without much thought to this scheme, Tld was edited to use "code" instead of "tt", probably because "tt" was deprecated from HTML. So, is it appropriate for all uses of "tt" to become "code"? Maybe, but another option, for example, would be "kbd". Or maybe the original application of the template was mistake and no "code" styling is necessary. I believe what is necessary is a manual review of each transclusion of Tld. That will determine whether Tld can simply be merged with or redirected to Tlc, or whether there are some surprising uses of Tld remaining for which we need to account. If there is a reason to retain Tld, the documentation needs vast improvement, and so might the coding, of course. But that can't happen until there is proper differentiation between the two templates through reviewing the transclusions, otherwise any changes to the template may have collateral consequences. I had started this process, reviewing the transclusions and replacing them with Tlc or a more appropriate Tl style template. However, some folks came over to my talk page to tell me they thought this was some kind of antisocial behavior and, to resolve that concern, I proposed to start a discussion here. So, even though this is styled as a merge, I am really asking for endorsement of the process of reviewing and correcting as appropriate the transclusions of Tld. I'd ask that you endorse that process by indicating "support". However, you might disagree and believe that a "merge" or "redirect" should take place immediately, without reviewing the transclusions, and you should indicate merge or redirect as appropriate, or some other position if you have one, of course. Bsherr (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I have had first hand experience being bewildered by the variety of templates used to represent other templates. A strong reason for merging is presented, and additionally I agree with merge, and also with subst / delete as an even better step that can simplify our written environment per nom. I also agree with the overall process here.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom's proposal. Looking at the templates I have no idea what the difference is, and it shouldn't be this hard. If we have users who wish to fix stuff like that, we should let them as the end result is a net positive (even if some cosmetic edits are involved). --Gonnym (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone fix it so the merge nomination is no-include? The template is in use on hundreds of thousands of templates pages, including Welcome templates, like on this new user's page. It is confusing and looks broken.— Diannaa (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
((Tld)) has 121k usages... you surely aren't thinking to review each one? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only the ones in the template namespace (1,273, and that includes instances that are only transclusions of subpages), in the project namespace that aren't discussion or historical (perhaps 50), the help namespace (3), and the category namespace (21). Fleeting uses, like those in the talk namespace or otherwise in discussion, won't need to be reviewed, although we might make a later decision on what to do with them if we plan to make changes to tld. --Bsherr (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. So to be clear, this TfD isn't going to result in any change or action to either template, instead it's just for 'permission' to be able to modify some of those 1,273 usages in the template namespace and change some to the other template, depending on the criteria in your nom? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting this for two reasons. First, the usual reason to garner more opinions. Second, because the nominator said that opinions of just straight-up merging the two templates would be entertained, and we're kinda split on "merge" vs "yes, you can edit the thousands of transclusions". I'd like to see a slightly clearer consensus on this, because the outcomes are wildly different and I don't want anyone thinking it should have really been "you can edit" when the close was "merge", or vice versa.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely no need for manual review of thousands of transclusions here (and thus hundreds or thousands of cosmetic edits). Nor is there any need to "merge" anything, since the output of both templates is the same sans some unused parameters that should just be dropped from the code. Just redirectTemplate:Tld to Template:Tlc (or vica versa, but I think "tlc" is a slightly better name since "c" is the first letter of "code"). * Pppery *it has begun... 00:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment as requested by relister. The output looks the same to me but I haven't delved into the history or uses of this template. Bsherr on the other hand, claims he has and sees a difference in uses. That is why I supported their proposal. The amount of uses is a lot, but they claim they want to do it, so the burden isn't being placed on anyone else. I don't mind a caveat added to the close that if Bsherr decides to stop doing this, then the template can be redirected without additional changes. --Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
redirect, no need for mass edits. Frietjes (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2020 (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).