Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 13: Difference between revisions

• Template:The Dreams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unneeded. Only one related article and otherwise only redirects or nonexistent articles. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I did find an article for another album but it doesn't further navigation as it also links to and from the other articles anyway. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not enough links to provide meaningful navigation. --woodensuperman 12:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Motion of no confidence votes in the United Kingdom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Possibly misleading, as the majority of links are redirects to sections of List of successful votes of no confidence in British governments. --Nevé–selbert 15:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All but three are redirects to the same article. The alternative would be to strip the navbox of everything but these three links, but I don't think that's really enough to warrant a navbox. --woodensuperman 12:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Taylor Swift songs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Taylor Swift (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Taylor Swift songs with Template:Taylor Swift.
No need for two navboxes, as the information can easily be handled by a single navbox, which isn't too big. See this version. --woodensuperman 09:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The purpose of templates is to facilitate navigation. In the proposed version it's very hard to find the song you need.
  By the way, I would like to note that the nominator seems to feel very strongly against not only all the songs templates on Wiki, but against grouping songs by album in musician templates in general. And he has changed probably hundreds of templates on Wiki into his preferred format without any consensus.
  Also see the discussion "Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 10#Template:Adele songs". The voters seemed to favor the merge, but it was because they liked the Adele template where the songs were grouped by albums. The next day after the discussion closed as "merge", the nominator came and merged all the songs into one section: [1]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic, but re the Adele navbox, the majority of the editors favoured the version I suggested in the nom. Only one had a preference for breaking it down by albums. --woodensuperman 11:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac said "merge if done like this", and then the next editor voted "per above". --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Per above" could mean either. --woodensuperman 11:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose for every detail that Moscow Connection mentioned. Woodensuperman, stop grouping general and song templates like this and cause disruption. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These types of navbox are regularly merged. See the Adele example above, and many other discussions for precedent. Two navboxes when one would do just as well hinders navigation, as you cannot reach the articles in the main navbox from the song navboxes. A navbox should be unmanageable before a split is necessary. This is clearly not the case here. --woodensuperman 11:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what is your justification for a single navbox being mroe useful? Your edit virtually creates a clutter of a navbox. Swift already has so many releases as songs/singles/tracks apart from her main album releases, that it is indeed unmanageable. You acted against consensus or any kind of consensus, result being we are here. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With a single navbox all related articles are visible. See the point I make below regarding the inability to navigate from Fearless Tour to Fearless (Taylor Swift song) with the two navbox situation. This does not benefit our readers. And my edit isn't against general consensus. There is a precedent to merge navboxes like this. See the many different related merge discussions... Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 24#Template:Lionel Richie singles, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_8#Template:The_Cure_singles, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_18#Template:Jamiroquai_singles, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_11#Template:A_Day_to_Remember_singles, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_27#Template:Pink_Floyd_singles, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_5#Template:R.E.M._singles, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_16#Template:Avicii_songs, etc, etc, etc. --woodensuperman 14:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not only is it harder to find songs in the linked revision, but it bloats a navbox that is supposed to serve as more of an overview than song collection when a separate song navbox was made. Even though I personally disagreed with the Adele outcome, keep in mind it was done because people didn't feel there were enough songs to warrant a separate navbox, and never said anything against splitting out in the future when more songs come out. Taylor has many more song articles than Adele, and probably more than any other type of article she has here combined. It's much easier to sort through by album in a separate navbox in this case when she has so many; the other version as it doesnt have any ridiculously big columns compared to others, plus the linked edition is too singles-centric when it's not supposed to be a singles discography (especially when there are pages for non-singles). Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This still doesn't justify two navboxes. Two navboxes are clearly more difficult to navigate than one, as you're missing half the links wherever you are. The two navbox situation means that you cannot navigate between, say, Fearless Tour and Fearless (Taylor Swift song). With just one navbox this would be possible. A singles navbox should only be created when one navbox becomes impossible, not as a matter of course. Pink Floyd released a lot more songs and albums than either artist being discussed here, but note also this RfC: Template talk:Pink Floyd#RfC: Should the Pink Floyd singles template be restored?. --woodensuperman 13:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be reasonable; your logic is flawed and you obviously didn't take into account how bloated navboxes become in cases like that (which I'm not sure if you even care about). Also, while WP:OTHERSTUFF admittedly isn't that strong of a point, keep in mind that consensus can change over time and the reasons given in that RFC to have one navbox were flawed. On another note, when Taylor has a bunch of pages for non-singles, she would have a SONGS template rather than a SINGLES template (which would solely consist of singles). Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point in this specific case is that the merge of the two navboxes would not be remotely bloated. Therefore we don't need to separate. --woodensuperman 14:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:NYCS logo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on one article epicgenius (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:YC companies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is redundant to List of Y Combinator startups which contains the same list of companies. The template also strikes me a potentially promotional, as its only purpose is to cross-link all Y Combinator (company) articles to each other. The list article already exists and is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (discolsure: I created the navbox) If a broad consensus is reached to delete the navbox, feel free to delete it. However, I still think that the navbox should be kept. Daylen (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant per nom. Daylen's Keep has no argument. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's no explicit cause for a different page; I understand if it was good faith here but there's also nothing substantial to argue on a second page. SwisterTwister talk 16:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NOTDUP, which states, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Also, this template enables users to functionally navigate related articles from article-to-article without having to utilize the list article. Furthermore, the template does not have a promotional tone. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Gwalior Metropolitan Region (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As for Gwalior Metropolitan Region, it doesn't exist (other than every town has a notional commuter belt). Batternut (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MADEUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rename and trim down. Well, it's called an "urban agglomeration" and a "metropolitan region" in at least one source [2] so the title isn't completely off (though feel free to move to a better title, simply {{Gwalior}} would probably do). The template navigates between six existing articles, all of which appear to be either within the city, or closely associated with it. If there any concerns about the inclusion of specific individual entries, feel free to remove them. – Uanfala 11:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]