March 12
Template:IZombie
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Template:IZombie ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Only four links to any articles not including the creators linked above. Both characters' links are to the same article but to the respective section on both the comic series and TV series. And the link to the comic series is featured twice.
Removing the non article links in the first section and the one link to the article section, you would have only three links within the navbox. No navigation is met with this. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 17:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. I've cleaned it up and there are four links after the subject plus the two comic book creators. This is borderline
WP:NENAN for me, but I've seen far worse. --
wooden
superman 10:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing so. But it's pretty bare bones. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 00:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Narrowly a delete for me. All of this should be easily connected already. Izno ( talk) 21:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- weak keep, connects 7 articles. Frietjes ( talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- The articles on the creators don't count. It's below that that matters. And it's not enough and all articles are already connected to each other anyway through article space. --
WikiCleanerMan (
talk) 23:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
The articles on the creators don't count
= say what? the articles of the creators are important, which is why they are in the navbox, and why the navbox is in the articles of the creators. Frietjes ( talk) 15:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)- But all links are able to found through the main article and through the rest in the navbox. No navigation is being added with those creator links. --
WikiCleanerMan (
talk) 15:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- which should be true for all links in navboxes, since navboxes are not visible on mobile, but yet we are not eliminating all navboxes. the point of a navbox is when you are navigating from an article other than the main article.
Frietjes (
talk) 15:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- And yet all links are connected through their respective articles. The navbox doesn't have a distinct form of navigation that can be met outside of going through the article pages to get there. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 00:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- which should be true for all links in navboxes, since navboxes are not visible on mobile, but yet we are not eliminating all navboxes. the point of a navbox is when you are navigating from an article other than the main article.
Frietjes (
talk) 15:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- But all links are able to found through the main article and through the rest in the navbox. No navigation is being added with those creator links. --
WikiCleanerMan (
talk) 15:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- The articles on the creators don't count. It's below that that matters. And it's not enough and all articles are already connected to each other anyway through article space. --
WikiCleanerMan (
talk) 23:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Single White Female
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗ plicit 23:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Single White Female ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Just three links. WP:NENAN. -- wooden superman 16:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 22:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Weybourne railway station present
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗ plicit 23:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
No transclusions of, or incoming links to, this broken railway diagram. Created in December 2023. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 22:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 keep. There is a consensus here, despite it not being "the question", to split {{ Historical American Documents}} to avoid the duplication issue, so I will start a formal discussion on splitting that template. Primefac ( talk) 12:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Substantial duplication, all signatories and other related links already included in the "Declaration of Independence" section of {{ Historical American Documents}} so no additional navigational benefit. Alternative would be to split {{ Historical American Documents}} into its component parts. -- wooden superman 13:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose, another alternate would be to leave this alone as an important United States founding navbox. The set of Founders signing this important document deserves both its own navbox and links in the overall event navbox, especially since we are now in the 250th anniversary period for the founding events and will have to watch and protect pages from IP vandals let alone the time sink of regular users attempting to delete them.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 13:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Do you not see the redundancy present here? All links are on both navboxes. There is literally a section for signatories of the Declaration of Independence in the other navbox. --
wooden
superman 13:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- In this case you are taking redundancy to mean something other than it should. The documents navbox lists the same names, yes, for full coverage of the event. But that navbox is not included on all of the signers pages, which is where the signers navbox does that job. There is no redundancy, just information about the document that belongs on both navboxes in order to fully cover the topic.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 13:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Per
WP:BIDIRECTIONAL they should be. Why are they linked in the navbox if the navbox isn't transcluded on those pages? --
wooden
superman 13:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- They are linked so readers can click on the links and read one or more of the articles. It is another way of readers finding articles of interest. Taking the policy Ignoring all rules into account (a policy, not a guideline, which would require that removing the links improves Wikipedia) would cover these commonsense links to articles for readers of the topic who would find them this way and not another.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 13:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- An identical set of links does not need be listed in two navboxes, especially if only one navbox is performing any navigational function. --
wooden
superman 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- They both perform as navboxes, and if the link to, say,
Benjamin Franklin is removed from the historical documents navbox it is lost to articles on which that navbox is added. May I ask, what does it really hurt to include links to the names? Does it improve Wikipedia or harm it to remove them?
WP:IAR is not an abstract concept to be avoided (I recall one user mentioning being proud that they hadn't invoked IAR in their 17 years of editing, as if it were an abstract essay) it's a policy.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 14:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's not perfoming as a navbox if it is not providing the required navigational function. You know that it's not an infobox right? And yes, overproliferation and abuse of navboxes does harm as it hinders a reader even finding the relevant links. You can't see the wood for the trees half the time here. This is why we do not need repitition of exactly the same set of links on two navboxes. --
wooden
superman 14:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- And in my point of view you, in good faith of course, don't even know that a lush forest exists since you spend all of your time looking at one tree. What harm? (seriously, what harm). I explained why the concise navbox is used on the signers pages and not the full documents navbox, and that the links serve a purpose of navigation to the signers of the document for readers who would find it that way. We are all about the readers, and should make finding any article of interest as easy as possible for them in order that they may both learn about the topic or, if interested, edit the page for further benefit to Wikipedia. Removing links to a name which is used anyway on the navbox removes those options and potential improvements.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 14:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please see
WP:POLICY:
Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. --
wooden
superman 14:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- ? You've commented on me as an editor several times in this discussion, let alone on others. As for me, feel free to comment on myself as an editor, having nothing to hide. Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please see
WP:POLICY:
Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. --
wooden
superman 14:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- And in my point of view you, in good faith of course, don't even know that a lush forest exists since you spend all of your time looking at one tree. What harm? (seriously, what harm). I explained why the concise navbox is used on the signers pages and not the full documents navbox, and that the links serve a purpose of navigation to the signers of the document for readers who would find it that way. We are all about the readers, and should make finding any article of interest as easy as possible for them in order that they may both learn about the topic or, if interested, edit the page for further benefit to Wikipedia. Removing links to a name which is used anyway on the navbox removes those options and potential improvements.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 14:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's not perfoming as a navbox if it is not providing the required navigational function. You know that it's not an infobox right? And yes, overproliferation and abuse of navboxes does harm as it hinders a reader even finding the relevant links. You can't see the wood for the trees half the time here. This is why we do not need repitition of exactly the same set of links on two navboxes. --
wooden
superman 14:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- They both perform as navboxes, and if the link to, say,
Benjamin Franklin is removed from the historical documents navbox it is lost to articles on which that navbox is added. May I ask, what does it really hurt to include links to the names? Does it improve Wikipedia or harm it to remove them?
WP:IAR is not an abstract concept to be avoided (I recall one user mentioning being proud that they hadn't invoked IAR in their 17 years of editing, as if it were an abstract essay) it's a policy.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 14:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- An identical set of links does not need be listed in two navboxes, especially if only one navbox is performing any navigational function. --
wooden
superman 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- They are linked so readers can click on the links and read one or more of the articles. It is another way of readers finding articles of interest. Taking the policy Ignoring all rules into account (a policy, not a guideline, which would require that removing the links improves Wikipedia) would cover these commonsense links to articles for readers of the topic who would find them this way and not another.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 13:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Per
WP:BIDIRECTIONAL they should be. Why are they linked in the navbox if the navbox isn't transcluded on those pages? --
wooden
superman 13:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- In this case you are taking redundancy to mean something other than it should. The documents navbox lists the same names, yes, for full coverage of the event. But that navbox is not included on all of the signers pages, which is where the signers navbox does that job. There is no redundancy, just information about the document that belongs on both navboxes in order to fully cover the topic.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 13:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Do you not see the redundancy present here? All links are on both navboxes. There is literally a section for signatories of the Declaration of Independence in the other navbox. --
wooden
superman 13:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom because I agree, its redundant since the {{
Historical American Documents}} covers it and does so in more detail. But I'm against splitting {{
Historical American Documents}}; not really necessary.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 13:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- These two are not redundant, the signatories navbox is in alphabetical order and is placed on each page. What you suggest is place the Historical documents navbox on each of the signatories pages - why not both. One an easy alphabetical listing and the other a fuller look at the document and its creators. This is the founding document of the United States, a little leeway in allowing both navboxes to function would be appropriate due to the weight of the topic, especially since they are both long-term navboxes and that nobody (no one, not a reader or editor) has complained before this discussion which shows the acceptance level of such detail and Wikipedia mapping information.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 14:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- The reason you don't need both is because of
WP:NAVBOXCREEP. It is redundant for two navboxes to present the same set or subset of articles. Navboxes aren't for a "fuller look" at a topic, that's what articles are for. Naboxes are for navigation. --
wooden
superman 12:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Navboxes are maps of the topic on Wikipedia. And it is fine to have two navboxes link to the same pages, especially in light of the historical importance we're discussing here.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 13:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- It isn't fine, two navboxes which duplicate the same data is the very definition of redundant. Until recently it was a speedy delete criteria. -- wooden superman 13:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Navboxes are maps of the topic on Wikipedia. And it is fine to have two navboxes link to the same pages, especially in light of the historical importance we're discussing here.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 13:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- The reason you don't need both is because of
WP:NAVBOXCREEP. It is redundant for two navboxes to present the same set or subset of articles. Navboxes aren't for a "fuller look" at a topic, that's what articles are for. Naboxes are for navigation. --
wooden
superman 12:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- These two are not redundant, the signatories navbox is in alphabetical order and is placed on each page. What you suggest is place the Historical documents navbox on each of the signatories pages - why not both. One an easy alphabetical listing and the other a fuller look at the document and its creators. This is the founding document of the United States, a little leeway in allowing both navboxes to function would be appropriate due to the weight of the topic, especially since they are both long-term navboxes and that nobody (no one, not a reader or editor) has complained before this discussion which shows the acceptance level of such detail and Wikipedia mapping information.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 14:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose -
Template:Historical American Documents seems like it could be easily split into four navboxes already, and the signers of United States Declaration of Independence seems to be a large enough subtopic to warrant a split. The others either are not large enough to split out the signers or do not have an article on the topic.
(Oinkers42) (
talk) 17:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- So are you advocating a split, utilising this one as the base template? --
wooden
superman 09:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- In any case, this is an extremely small amount of editors commenting on such an important navbox - the Declaration of Independence isn't Granny's Apple Pie wins but the foundation of the creation of a leading national direction and policy. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, I want
Template:Historical American Documents to be broken into its component parts with the signer's being split into its own template as well.
(Oinkers42) (
talk) 18:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- They are both valuable as maps to the topic (the Historical American Documents navbox is actually the best map to the founding documents on the entire web and not just Wikipedia). But a split isn't being decided here, just being used as an example. The signers navbox under question is an easily understood concise alphabetical listing while the wonderful Historical American Documents navbox lists the signers by state. Seems the concern is that two related but topic-dissimilar navboxes include links to articles about individuals who signed one of the important documents, but that only one of them should include the useful links (which I do not understand as being a problem, and nobody else has either - editor or reader - until this nomination). Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- So are you advocating a split, utilising this one as the base template? --
wooden
superman 09:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep this one. The HAD template is the one that actually should be at TFD. Izno ( talk) 21:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and split {{ Historical American Documents}} potentially getting rid of it due to its oversize (as per Izno). If anything it should be a {{ navboxes}} template and not a {{ navbox}} one. — Uzume ( talk) 10:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- HAD is an example in this discussion but not nominated for anything. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- keep and split {{ Historical American Documents}} instead. Frietjes ( talk) 23:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Split {{ Historical American Documents}} which also fixes the duplication with {{ Constitution of the United States}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Anything about the historical documents navbox cannot be decided in this discussion, it is a talking point. Randy Kryn ( talk) 06:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Ruhuna Rhinos
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗ plicit 12:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Ruhuna Rhinos ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Current squad template for defunct cricket team. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 00:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 22:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
March 12
Template:IZombie
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Template:IZombie ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Only four links to any articles not including the creators linked above. Both characters' links are to the same article but to the respective section on both the comic series and TV series. And the link to the comic series is featured twice.
Removing the non article links in the first section and the one link to the article section, you would have only three links within the navbox. No navigation is met with this. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 17:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. I've cleaned it up and there are four links after the subject plus the two comic book creators. This is borderline
WP:NENAN for me, but I've seen far worse. --
wooden
superman 10:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing so. But it's pretty bare bones. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 00:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Narrowly a delete for me. All of this should be easily connected already. Izno ( talk) 21:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- weak keep, connects 7 articles. Frietjes ( talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- The articles on the creators don't count. It's below that that matters. And it's not enough and all articles are already connected to each other anyway through article space. --
WikiCleanerMan (
talk) 23:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
The articles on the creators don't count
= say what? the articles of the creators are important, which is why they are in the navbox, and why the navbox is in the articles of the creators. Frietjes ( talk) 15:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)- But all links are able to found through the main article and through the rest in the navbox. No navigation is being added with those creator links. --
WikiCleanerMan (
talk) 15:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- which should be true for all links in navboxes, since navboxes are not visible on mobile, but yet we are not eliminating all navboxes. the point of a navbox is when you are navigating from an article other than the main article.
Frietjes (
talk) 15:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- And yet all links are connected through their respective articles. The navbox doesn't have a distinct form of navigation that can be met outside of going through the article pages to get there. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 00:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- which should be true for all links in navboxes, since navboxes are not visible on mobile, but yet we are not eliminating all navboxes. the point of a navbox is when you are navigating from an article other than the main article.
Frietjes (
talk) 15:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- But all links are able to found through the main article and through the rest in the navbox. No navigation is being added with those creator links. --
WikiCleanerMan (
talk) 15:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- The articles on the creators don't count. It's below that that matters. And it's not enough and all articles are already connected to each other anyway through article space. --
WikiCleanerMan (
talk) 23:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Single White Female
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗ plicit 23:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Single White Female ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Just three links. WP:NENAN. -- wooden superman 16:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 22:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Weybourne railway station present
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗ plicit 23:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
No transclusions of, or incoming links to, this broken railway diagram. Created in December 2023. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 22:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 keep. There is a consensus here, despite it not being "the question", to split {{ Historical American Documents}} to avoid the duplication issue, so I will start a formal discussion on splitting that template. Primefac ( talk) 12:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Substantial duplication, all signatories and other related links already included in the "Declaration of Independence" section of {{ Historical American Documents}} so no additional navigational benefit. Alternative would be to split {{ Historical American Documents}} into its component parts. -- wooden superman 13:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose, another alternate would be to leave this alone as an important United States founding navbox. The set of Founders signing this important document deserves both its own navbox and links in the overall event navbox, especially since we are now in the 250th anniversary period for the founding events and will have to watch and protect pages from IP vandals let alone the time sink of regular users attempting to delete them.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 13:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Do you not see the redundancy present here? All links are on both navboxes. There is literally a section for signatories of the Declaration of Independence in the other navbox. --
wooden
superman 13:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- In this case you are taking redundancy to mean something other than it should. The documents navbox lists the same names, yes, for full coverage of the event. But that navbox is not included on all of the signers pages, which is where the signers navbox does that job. There is no redundancy, just information about the document that belongs on both navboxes in order to fully cover the topic.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 13:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Per
WP:BIDIRECTIONAL they should be. Why are they linked in the navbox if the navbox isn't transcluded on those pages? --
wooden
superman 13:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- They are linked so readers can click on the links and read one or more of the articles. It is another way of readers finding articles of interest. Taking the policy Ignoring all rules into account (a policy, not a guideline, which would require that removing the links improves Wikipedia) would cover these commonsense links to articles for readers of the topic who would find them this way and not another.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 13:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- An identical set of links does not need be listed in two navboxes, especially if only one navbox is performing any navigational function. --
wooden
superman 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- They both perform as navboxes, and if the link to, say,
Benjamin Franklin is removed from the historical documents navbox it is lost to articles on which that navbox is added. May I ask, what does it really hurt to include links to the names? Does it improve Wikipedia or harm it to remove them?
WP:IAR is not an abstract concept to be avoided (I recall one user mentioning being proud that they hadn't invoked IAR in their 17 years of editing, as if it were an abstract essay) it's a policy.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 14:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's not perfoming as a navbox if it is not providing the required navigational function. You know that it's not an infobox right? And yes, overproliferation and abuse of navboxes does harm as it hinders a reader even finding the relevant links. You can't see the wood for the trees half the time here. This is why we do not need repitition of exactly the same set of links on two navboxes. --
wooden
superman 14:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- And in my point of view you, in good faith of course, don't even know that a lush forest exists since you spend all of your time looking at one tree. What harm? (seriously, what harm). I explained why the concise navbox is used on the signers pages and not the full documents navbox, and that the links serve a purpose of navigation to the signers of the document for readers who would find it that way. We are all about the readers, and should make finding any article of interest as easy as possible for them in order that they may both learn about the topic or, if interested, edit the page for further benefit to Wikipedia. Removing links to a name which is used anyway on the navbox removes those options and potential improvements.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 14:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please see
WP:POLICY:
Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. --
wooden
superman 14:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- ? You've commented on me as an editor several times in this discussion, let alone on others. As for me, feel free to comment on myself as an editor, having nothing to hide. Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please see
WP:POLICY:
Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. --
wooden
superman 14:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- And in my point of view you, in good faith of course, don't even know that a lush forest exists since you spend all of your time looking at one tree. What harm? (seriously, what harm). I explained why the concise navbox is used on the signers pages and not the full documents navbox, and that the links serve a purpose of navigation to the signers of the document for readers who would find it that way. We are all about the readers, and should make finding any article of interest as easy as possible for them in order that they may both learn about the topic or, if interested, edit the page for further benefit to Wikipedia. Removing links to a name which is used anyway on the navbox removes those options and potential improvements.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 14:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's not perfoming as a navbox if it is not providing the required navigational function. You know that it's not an infobox right? And yes, overproliferation and abuse of navboxes does harm as it hinders a reader even finding the relevant links. You can't see the wood for the trees half the time here. This is why we do not need repitition of exactly the same set of links on two navboxes. --
wooden
superman 14:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- They both perform as navboxes, and if the link to, say,
Benjamin Franklin is removed from the historical documents navbox it is lost to articles on which that navbox is added. May I ask, what does it really hurt to include links to the names? Does it improve Wikipedia or harm it to remove them?
WP:IAR is not an abstract concept to be avoided (I recall one user mentioning being proud that they hadn't invoked IAR in their 17 years of editing, as if it were an abstract essay) it's a policy.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 14:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- An identical set of links does not need be listed in two navboxes, especially if only one navbox is performing any navigational function. --
wooden
superman 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- They are linked so readers can click on the links and read one or more of the articles. It is another way of readers finding articles of interest. Taking the policy Ignoring all rules into account (a policy, not a guideline, which would require that removing the links improves Wikipedia) would cover these commonsense links to articles for readers of the topic who would find them this way and not another.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 13:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Per
WP:BIDIRECTIONAL they should be. Why are they linked in the navbox if the navbox isn't transcluded on those pages? --
wooden
superman 13:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- In this case you are taking redundancy to mean something other than it should. The documents navbox lists the same names, yes, for full coverage of the event. But that navbox is not included on all of the signers pages, which is where the signers navbox does that job. There is no redundancy, just information about the document that belongs on both navboxes in order to fully cover the topic.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 13:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Do you not see the redundancy present here? All links are on both navboxes. There is literally a section for signatories of the Declaration of Independence in the other navbox. --
wooden
superman 13:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom because I agree, its redundant since the {{
Historical American Documents}} covers it and does so in more detail. But I'm against splitting {{
Historical American Documents}}; not really necessary.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 13:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- These two are not redundant, the signatories navbox is in alphabetical order and is placed on each page. What you suggest is place the Historical documents navbox on each of the signatories pages - why not both. One an easy alphabetical listing and the other a fuller look at the document and its creators. This is the founding document of the United States, a little leeway in allowing both navboxes to function would be appropriate due to the weight of the topic, especially since they are both long-term navboxes and that nobody (no one, not a reader or editor) has complained before this discussion which shows the acceptance level of such detail and Wikipedia mapping information.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 14:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- The reason you don't need both is because of
WP:NAVBOXCREEP. It is redundant for two navboxes to present the same set or subset of articles. Navboxes aren't for a "fuller look" at a topic, that's what articles are for. Naboxes are for navigation. --
wooden
superman 12:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Navboxes are maps of the topic on Wikipedia. And it is fine to have two navboxes link to the same pages, especially in light of the historical importance we're discussing here.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 13:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- It isn't fine, two navboxes which duplicate the same data is the very definition of redundant. Until recently it was a speedy delete criteria. -- wooden superman 13:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Navboxes are maps of the topic on Wikipedia. And it is fine to have two navboxes link to the same pages, especially in light of the historical importance we're discussing here.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 13:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- The reason you don't need both is because of
WP:NAVBOXCREEP. It is redundant for two navboxes to present the same set or subset of articles. Navboxes aren't for a "fuller look" at a topic, that's what articles are for. Naboxes are for navigation. --
wooden
superman 12:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- These two are not redundant, the signatories navbox is in alphabetical order and is placed on each page. What you suggest is place the Historical documents navbox on each of the signatories pages - why not both. One an easy alphabetical listing and the other a fuller look at the document and its creators. This is the founding document of the United States, a little leeway in allowing both navboxes to function would be appropriate due to the weight of the topic, especially since they are both long-term navboxes and that nobody (no one, not a reader or editor) has complained before this discussion which shows the acceptance level of such detail and Wikipedia mapping information.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 14:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose -
Template:Historical American Documents seems like it could be easily split into four navboxes already, and the signers of United States Declaration of Independence seems to be a large enough subtopic to warrant a split. The others either are not large enough to split out the signers or do not have an article on the topic.
(Oinkers42) (
talk) 17:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- So are you advocating a split, utilising this one as the base template? --
wooden
superman 09:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- In any case, this is an extremely small amount of editors commenting on such an important navbox - the Declaration of Independence isn't Granny's Apple Pie wins but the foundation of the creation of a leading national direction and policy. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, I want
Template:Historical American Documents to be broken into its component parts with the signer's being split into its own template as well.
(Oinkers42) (
talk) 18:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- They are both valuable as maps to the topic (the Historical American Documents navbox is actually the best map to the founding documents on the entire web and not just Wikipedia). But a split isn't being decided here, just being used as an example. The signers navbox under question is an easily understood concise alphabetical listing while the wonderful Historical American Documents navbox lists the signers by state. Seems the concern is that two related but topic-dissimilar navboxes include links to articles about individuals who signed one of the important documents, but that only one of them should include the useful links (which I do not understand as being a problem, and nobody else has either - editor or reader - until this nomination). Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- So are you advocating a split, utilising this one as the base template? --
wooden
superman 09:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep this one. The HAD template is the one that actually should be at TFD. Izno ( talk) 21:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and split {{ Historical American Documents}} potentially getting rid of it due to its oversize (as per Izno). If anything it should be a {{ navboxes}} template and not a {{ navbox}} one. — Uzume ( talk) 10:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- HAD is an example in this discussion but not nominated for anything. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- keep and split {{ Historical American Documents}} instead. Frietjes ( talk) 23:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Split {{ Historical American Documents}} which also fixes the duplication with {{ Constitution of the United States}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Anything about the historical documents navbox cannot be decided in this discussion, it is a talking point. Randy Kryn ( talk) 06:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Ruhuna Rhinos
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗ plicit 12:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Ruhuna Rhinos ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Current squad template for defunct cricket team. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 00:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 22:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.