Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

More information V, Jan ...

Shortcut

WP:TFD

On this page, the deletion or merging of templates and modules, except as noted below, is discussed.

How to use this page

Listing a template

Shortcuts

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. The use of Twinkle (explained below) is strongly recommended, as it automates and simplifies these steps. Note that the "Template:" prefix should not be included anywhere when carrying out these steps (unless otherwise specified).

More information Step, Instructions ...

Step	Instructions
I: Tag the template.	Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page: For deletion: `{{subst:Tfd}}` For deletion of a sidebar or infobox template: `{{subst:Tfd\|type=sidebar}}` For deletion of an inline template: `{{subst:Tfd\|type=inline}}` For deletion of a module: `{{subst:Tfd\|type=module\|page=name of module}}` at the top of the module's `/doc` subpage. For merging: `{{subst:Tfm\|name of other template}}` For merging an inline template: `{{subst:Tfm\|type=inline\|name of other template}}` Other values for `\|type=` are available, see Template:Template for discussion#Display on articles Note: If the template nominated is inline, do not add a newline between the TfD notice and the code of the template. If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, make a request for the TfD tag to be added, by posting on the template's talk page and using the `{{editprotected}}` template to catch the attention of administrators or Template editors. For templates designed to be substituted, add `<noinclude>...</noinclude>` around the TfD notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template. Do not mark the edit as minor. Use an edit summary like `Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]` or `Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]`. Before saving your edit, preview your edit to ensure the Tfd message is displayed properly. Multiple templates: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with `{{subst:Tfd\|heading=discussion title}}` or `{{subst:Tfm\|name of other template\|heading=discussion title}}` instead of the versions given above, replacing `discussion title` with the title you chose (but still not changing the `PAGENAME` code). Related categories: If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, add `{{Catfd\|template name}}` to the top of any categories that would be deleted as a result of the TfD, this time replacing `template name` with the name of the template being nominated. (If you instead chose a meaningful title for a multiple nomination, use `{{Catfd\|header=title of nomination}}` instead.) TemplateStyles pages: The above templates will not work on TemplateStyles pages. Instead, add a CSS comment to the top of the page: `/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024_April_23#Template:template_name.css */`
II: List the template at TfD.	Follow this link to edit today's TfD log. Add this text to the top of the list: For deletion: `{{subst:Tfd2\|template name\|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}` For merging: `{{subst:Tfm2\|template name\|other template's name\|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}` If the template has had previous TfDs, you can add `{{Oldtfdlist\|previous TfD without brackets\|result of previous TfD}}` directly after the `Tfd2/Catfd2` template. Use an edit summary such as `Adding [[Template:template name]]`. Multiple templates: If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following: `{{subst:Tfd2\|template name 1\|template name 2 ...\|title=meaningful discussion title\|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}` You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters `\|` ). Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1. If this is a merger proposal involving more than two templates, use the following: `{{subst:Tfm2\|template name 1\|template name 2 ...\|with=main template (optional)\|title=meaningful discussion title\|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}` You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters `\|` ), plus one more in `\|with=`. `\|with=` does not need to be used, but should be the template that you want the other templates to be merged into. Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1. Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code in the `\|text=` field of the `Tfd2` template but before the text of your rationale: `{{subst:Catfd2\|category name}}`
III: Notify users.	Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following: For deletion: `{{subst:Tfd notice\|template name}}` ~~~~ For merging: `{{subst:Tfm notice\|template name\|other template's name}}` ~~~~ to the talk pages of the template creator (and the creator of the other template for a merger) and the talk pages of the main contributors. It is also helpful to make any interested WikiProjects aware of the discussion. To do that, make sure the template's talk page is tagged with the banners of any relevant WikiProjects; please consider notifying any of them that do not use Article alerts. Multiple templates: There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: please write a personal message in these cases.

Consider adding any templates you nominate for TfD to your watchlist. This will help ensure that the TfD tag is not removed.

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors

While it is sufficient to list a template for discussion at TfD (see above), nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing.

To encourage participation by less experienced editors, please avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the TfD discussion page itself. If you are recommending that a template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets.

Current discussions

April 20

Template:Welcome-arbpia

Template:Welcome-arbpia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:CTOP, only officially designated templates can be used to alert an editor to a contentious topic. This unfortunately contradicts this, although I commend the effort made to attempt to be less bitey to newcomers. Awesome Aasim 16:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I use this template quite a lot but always in conjunction with the official template, just for new users that venture into the AI/IP area and cannot be expected to "get" the complications of Arbpia/CT and WP:ARBECR right off the bat. I don't use it for editors that have already met the requirements for editing in the topic area, for those only the official template. It is on balance useful even if some editors do not get that either. If it would go away, I would probably go back to just adding the same kind of thing as a plain text addition to the official template, so why not just leave this be? If not, then probably we need an official version.Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I use this template frequently as well but never without also adding the official template. It's great to have this option to kindly welcome new users trying to edit in the topic area in addition to the official template. If anything the language in this template could be incorporated into the official template which would require a broader discussion than this. Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

and I don't believe this template is intended to replace the official CTOP warning. Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed it is not per

Not intended to replace, but rather give some information in plain language before the "The Arbitration Committee has authorized sanctions" legalese starts.
— User:ScottishFinnishRadish 1:59 pm, 20 November 2023, Monday (4 months, 31 days ago) (UTC−5)

Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree with this; I just think that deviation from a formalized process that has been discussed by the community and agreed upon by ArbCom should not be done without good reason. This is a good question to raise on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee - if there can be a way to get editors aware while not sounding super harsh. Maybe ArbCom creates a {{welcome-ct}} template. Awesome Aasim 00:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I brought this up at WT:ACN here, and it was discussed there and the village pump. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

This template is a lot more clear on the requirements than the official one. The only problem I have is that it looks like overkill to place this one as well as the official one. A better solution would be to get changes to the official template to make it as user-friendly as this one. Meanwhile I don't think this one should be deleted. Zero^talk 06:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I concur with the comments above, this template should be used as inspiration to make the official one more user-friendly. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 10:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

April 19

April 18

Template:Charyapada

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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 03:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Charyapada (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is not used, nor directly or by template substitution, and has no likelihood of being used. Most of the links seem unrelated to the topic. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 00:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

~~I am adding the template in the articles, don't be hurry. Charyapada is most important ancient document in Bengali and assamese literature. Bengali editor (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)~~ Sockstrike ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The articles you added the template to seem unrelated to the topic. For example, you added it to Aryadeva, where the only mention of the word "Charyapada" is in the template and categories, which you addded. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 00:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

You did the same at Miranda E. Shaw. User:CanonNi, do we have to look at all of them? Drmies (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It might be too long to put here, but sure. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 00:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

~~Aryadeva was "surely" an important figure in Charyapada, but in case of Miranda M. Shaw, you can remove the template.Bengali editor (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)~~ Sockstrike ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

If you know the template is unrelated to the topic, why put it there in the first place? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 00:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I did, and I did the same in a bunch of others, and you really need to stop because it looks like you're gaming the system. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Miranda M Shaw and Bangiya Shahitya Parishad is mentioned in Charyapada article "As songs of realization, the Caryāpada were intended to be sung. These songs of realisation were spontaneously composed verses that expressed a practitioner's experience of the enlightened state. Miranda Shaw describes how songs of realization were an element of the ritual gathering of practitioners in a ganachakra:" and "The original palm-leaf manuscript of the Charyapada, or Caryācaryāviniścaya, spanning 47 padas (verses) along with a Sanskrit commentary, was edited by Shastri and published from Bangiya Sahitya Parishad as a part of his Hajar Bacharer Purano Bangala Bhasay Bauddhagan O Doha (Buddhist Songs and Couplets) in 1916 under the name of Charyacharyavinishchayah. This manuscript is presently preserved at the National Archives of Nepal.". They are not unrilated, bangiaya sahitya parishad first published the biblical version of research on Charyapada and Miranda M. Shaw is a notable western resercher on ancient twilight language researcher including the document of Charyapada, please check the Charyapada article. Bengali editor (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Sockstrike ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

If they are related, why is the word "Charyapada" not mentioned in the articles at all? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 00:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Bengali editor, that should have been part of the article content--properly written, with secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

See the relation of Bangiya Sahitya Parisad and Charyapad here in a lot of secondary established sources written in both bengali and english in google book search. For bengali, use google translate, https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-oppo-rvo3&sca_esv=38e6d9cfed2f671c&sca_upv=1&q=bangiya+sahitya+parishad+charyapada&tbm=bks&source=lnms&prmd=ivsnmbz&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx3MbFt7aFAxUIR2cHHWO0DAcQ0pQJegQITRAB&biw=360&bih=668&dpr=2 ^[1] "Charyapada is credited to the early 20th- century scholar Haraprasad Shastri who bumped upon the palm-leaf manuscript at the Nepal Royal Court Library in 1907 and published in the form of a book in 1916 from Bangiya Sahitya Parishad "

~~Bengali editor (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)~~ Sockstrike ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, if the topics are related, why isn't Charyapada mentioned in Bangiya Sahitya Parishat? In addition, the Google Books key terms in the book you linked has no mention of Charyapada when I Google Translated it. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 01:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The article is poorly written above it's importance and the google translate "surely" mentions the world "Charyapad" (চর্যাপদ) with Bangiya Shahitya Parisad (বঙ্গীয় সাহিত্য পরিষদ) in lots of books. Check again please. And the book i mentioned is in english, not bengali, you don't need to translate. Check again. Bengali editor (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Sockstrike ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

2 mentions of the word Charyapada appeared when I searched in the book:

Charyapada are believed to be written by some ascetics in the Vajrayana tradition of Buddhism. It is believed by many scholars that these poems were first composed, then sung, and later written (between the 6th and 12th centuries). The ...
Akash Dutta. AN. INTRODUCTION. TO. THE. HISTORY. OF. BENGALI. POETRY. Although the Charyapada (composed, sung, and compiled between the 6th and 12th centuries CE when Beowulf, the earliest example of Old English literature, was also being ...

No mention of Bangiya Sahitya Parishat. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 01:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

"The mystical poems of the Charyapada are believed to be written by some ascetics in the Vajrayana tradition of Buddhism. It is believed by many scholars that these poems were first composed, then sung, and later written (between the 6th and 12th centuries). The language was a kind of Abahatta that was the precursor of many Eastern Indo-Aryan languages including the Assamese, Bengali, Odia, Magahi, and Maithili. Hence the unending debate whether each of these languages had originated from the same source or not.

The discovery of the Charyapada is credited to the early 20th-century scholar Haraprasad Shastri who bumped upon the palm-leaf manuscript at the Nepal Royal Court Library in 1907 and published in the form of a book in 1916 from Bangiya Sahitya Parishad as a part of his Hajar Bacharer Purano Bangala Bhasay Bauddhagan O Doha (Buddhist Songs and Couplets) under the name of Charyacharyavinishchayah. It is assumed that some scholars of Bengal and Mithila fled to Nepal and also to Tibet when the Turkic soldiers invaded Bengal in the 12th century A.D. The major poets or Siddhacharyas of Charyapada were Luipada, Chatillapada, Bhusukupada, and Kanhapada. All of them wrote in highly allegorical language while using riddling and often confusing terms infusing numerous religious symbologies and mysticism. Since the language of these hymns can only be moderately understood, it is called Sandhya Bhasha or the twilight language. The Charyapada hymns have been critically appreciated for their linguistic and literary values.^[2] Bengali editor (talk) Sockstrike ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Sarkar, Pabitra (12 February 2024). "Vangiya Sahitya Parishat, the first Bengal Academy of Literature". The Daily Star. Retrieved 10 April 2024. The Parishat also boasts a proud list of great publications, particularly those concerning old and middle Bengali literature. The Charyapadas, which carry the first samples of the earliest Bengali, is one such publication (1916). It was edited as Hajar Bachharer Puratan Bangala Bashay Bouddhagan O Doha by Haraprasad Shastri, who had discovered it in 1907 at the library of Nepal's Prime Minister. Another example is Shrikrishnakirtan, collected (1909) and edited (1916) by Basanta Ranjan Bidvatballabh. Bengali editor (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Sockstrike ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Incoherent. --wooden superman 10:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

References

[1]
Dutta, Akash (15 August 2021). The Light of the Hidden Flowers. Global Collective Publishers. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-954021-37-2. Retrieved 10 April 2024.
[2]
Mukhopadhyay, Nirmalya (15 August 2021). The Vision of the Solitary Man. Global Collective Publishers. p. XXIV. ISBN 978-1-954021-35-8. Retrieved 10 April 2024.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting mainly because the !votes are currently "per nom", but the nomination is that it is unused (which is no longer true).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy delete per WP:G5: creator Bengali editor is a block-evading sockpuppet and there are no other substantial contributors. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:33, 20 April 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.

April 17

Old discussions

April 11

Template:Concordia Cardinals football coach navbox

[edit]

Template:Concordia Cardinals football coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox only contains two blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. WP:NENAN. --wooden superman 08:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Not sure of / if there's a policy specific on this(?), but generally it seems fine to me to have navboxes when there's multiple links, especially of this type; coach navboxes like this are very useful IMO, both to editors and I'd think those who want to know more about the coaching history of their programs (as its often the only place to find it). NENAN is an essay. Not to mention it is almost certain there could be more bluelinks made if the redlinks are created. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Keep. This template has two blue links in its body, represents "a well-defined and complete set of data" per Wikipedia:Navigation template, and is a member of a structured and long-standing class of templates. At the very least, this template should be draftified/userfied. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The navbox fails #3, #4, and #5 of the criteria listed at WP:NAVBOX. There is no article for the subject of this navbox (List of Concordia Cardinals football coaches) and there probably shouldn't be one. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep. per Jweiss11 and BeanieFan11's comments. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Subst or userfy there will be more coaches in the future to justify this template. Until then it doesn't need to be removed from the articles it is in. Pinguinn 🐧 23:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

April 3

Template:Historical American Documents

[edit]

Template:Historical American Documents (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

During the course of this TFD there was a majority opinion that this template is potentially too large and should be split (not only for size reasons but to avoid duplication with templates such as {{Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence}}). This is a procedural nomination to see if there is a formal consensus to do so. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Split per discussion you mention above where there was significant support for this. {{Constitution of the United States}} and {{Signers of the Continental Association}} also already exist, so there is already substantial duplication, not only between these navboxes, but also within this nominated navbox. For example Samuel Adams is present 3-4 times, so if navigating, which occurrence are you even navigating from? --wooden superman 12:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Please note that this navbox is not placed on the pages of the individual signers, which is taken care of by the alphabetical signers navboxes. The names are linked for the convenience of the readers, and unlinking them would be the "solution" and that seems kind of an unneeded and almost over-the-top technical nuance (so let's leave the links per commonsense). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This is all the more reason to split and make sure that navbox transclusion is correctly implemented without redundancy. --wooden superman 14:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no redundancy, the individuals listed on each section of the navbox are part of the history of the specific document. All that would change would be unlinking the names, which seems kind of an unwarrented round-about exercise in denying readers access. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Then the navbox should be transcluded. You seem to be advocating a two tier system of navboxes, split into component parts and transcluded, and merged but not transcluded. This is not how navboxes are supposed to work. See WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. --wooden superman 14:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

These are names of the individual signers of the documents. Are you saying that the navbox, or the four navboxes if split, should be added to each of the individual signers when there are already an adequate navbox for the signers of each document? You are simply advocating removing the links to the names, which seems like a head-scratcher of needless adherence to a guideline. For this one, to keep the names linked on the HADocuments navbox, the policy WP:IAR would adequately apply. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Not once have I suggested we remove any links. --wooden superman 14:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Then what are you suggesting? That the single navbox or the four split navboxes all be added to the pages of each of the signers? That's fine with me but seems undue since the alphabetical navboxes for the signers of each document exist. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm suggesting the navbox is split so that there isn't the duplication, redundancy and seemingly two-tier system we have now. --wooden superman 15:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Procedural Keep as to the discussion listed, please note that there was no alert given at the navbox for deleting this navbox, no alert given at the topics in would affect, and no alert given, well, anywhere. Such an established and respected navbox should not, of course, be deleted as an aside at a totally different discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Strong Keep as to this nomination. This is the best map of the American founding documents of the United States on the internet, and is a full map to Wikipedia's collection on the founding documents. There is no duplication as to individual signers, the navboxes listing the signers are in alphabetical order which this full template lists the signers by states. It doesn't have to link the names, but it would be kind of foolish not to, and many topics have various navboxes which link to the pages and many others have sections which are combined as a full topic, as this one does. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Randy. Any duplication that may occur exists withing the context of its own section. Many reference manuals make the same general statement, but in different context. e.g. Did you know that in most reference manuals about the American Revolution they mention several times that George Washington was the first president? Indeed.. but always in a different context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Notifying all participants in previous discussion: @Omnis Scientia; @(Oinkers42); @Izno; @Uzume; @Frietjes; @Plastikspork --wooden superman 13:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

and let's notify major editors of this template, Drdpw and Paine Ellsworth. This is not a standard just-another-day beanbag navbox, this is the major template outlining, as a specific group, the four founding documents of America just as we are in the midst of the nation's 250th birthday celebrations. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Support split of unnecessarily long template as consensus on the merits at the individual discussions. I do agree discussion of such a highly visible template should get appropriate notice, but necessary housekeeping does not invalidate the need for such discussion. The creation of this discussion to confirm the apparent outcome of earlier discussions demonstrates OP's efforts in this regard. The individual discussions linked demonstrate a general consensus to split these (not delete them) so they make more compact forms. IMHO, there's nothing policy-based in User:Randy Kryn's very bolded "strong keep". Nobody is advocating deletion of any kind. BusterD (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The four together form a notable topic, and probably hundreds if not thousands of templates are presented in navigatable individual sections. This seems a good navbox for such a typical combination, and has been since its creation (with no objections by anyone until now) in 2010. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, your opinions have been made clear. You are bludgeoning these discussions but not gaining support for your positions. It won't be necessary for you to comment on each disagreeing assertion in this discussion. On the merits, notable topics have their own individual articles and templates. In my opinion, this template is unnecessarily massive. BusterD (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

No bludgeoning is taking place, simply comments and replies to aspects of this unusual nomination to clarify. As for not gaining support, this discussion has just been put up, so any support would come later and not during the initial clarifying discussions which often occur at such noms. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, your replies are in response to the multiple statements made by another editor. The only "bludgeoning" I see around here is coming from an editor making accusations, which only compounds and frustrates the debate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support of Split the template is unnecessarily long and can easily be split into multiple templates. This just seems like common sense. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

split, as mentioned above {{Constitution of the United States}} and {{Signers of the Continental Association}} exist, splitting would help with this duplication in navigation. Frietjes (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Keep —There's lot's of talk about splitting, but not much about what will be moved. The template is well organized and laid out in separate sections -- easy to navigate. It would seem we need more than the opinion that it's "too long". It's like complaining that a dictionary or a a reference manual is too big. That could be the case if the dictionary wasn't alphabetized, or the manual didn't have a Table of Contents, and/or an index.i.e. Organized. Our template is well organized, and all on one easy to navigate, sectioned, chart. Any "duplication" only occurs in the context of a different section on the chart. i.e. Consistency. Splitting will involve further debate, for who knows how long, not to mention the potential for disruption among those editors who actually use this template to help their writing and referencing. Unless we have more than an opinion that the template is "too long", there seems to be no pressing reason to try and fix what isn't broke in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Split per previous discussion. Izno (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Split. While, I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, I'm voting to "split" since it would avoid duplications. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Split: I do not understand why there is such an argument. We can have our cake and eat it too in this situation. Why not just split {{Historical American Documents}} into a bunch of sub/child navboxes (where {{Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence}} could potentially represent the Continental Association section although I might be alright with a different navbox with duplication here if it was adequately called for). Each of the subnavboxes just needs a their border parameters controlled with something like: |border={{{border}}} and then {{Historical American Documents}} can just call them each with |border=subgroup in much the same way it already calls each section {{#invoke:navbox|navbox|child|...}}} but convert each to {{NavboxTemplateName|border=subgroup}}. The only real difference would be more V • T • E navbar links (unless |navbar=plain is used) and smaller lists of things to maintain on each subnavbox. —Uzume (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
There's no meaningful reason to perform a split like that. It's literally not a win over either the status quo or the suggested (full) split of the template. Izno (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

We need to split this to discrete navboxes for each topic, not overcomplicate or overthink this. --wooden superman 08:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, if we're going to split, let's keep it simple. For example...

The Constitution section', with its subsections, should remain as is.
The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and the Continental Association sections should go together in a two-section nav-box, as these documents were like the prototypes of, and were the precursor to, the Constitution..
The Declaration of Independence section should get its own nav-box, as it ties into almost everything else.

Each of these nav-boxes of course should have bold links to the others, perhaps at the top of a given nav-box for easy access. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, three or four discrete navboxes as you suggest. However, we should not be linking away to template space from navboxes. Links in navboxes should only really link to article space. --wooden superman 08:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Split to reduce duplication as suggested above. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The nav-box in question, when collapsed, reduces down to a hidden stack of sub-navboxes, very neat and orderly. This is the way it occurs in all the articles that include this navbox at the bottom. IOW, our navbox is already split into sub navboxes. This so called "duplication" only exists among separate navboxes. It's as if we're making an issue over the idea that a given fact occurs more than once, in a different context, in a particular article, which is common place here at WP, and in most historical texts. While there has been generic mention of "duplication", no one has bothered to explain how this poses some kind of problem. Bear in mind that if we split as suggested above, the navboxes in question will simply be stacked one above the other, in the same way they already occur in our navbox here, and the way all the navboxes are listed here and here, and in many other articles. Splitting will mean the stack of navboxes in these articles will only get taller. As indicated, I can go along with splitting, as this is the overwhelming consensus, but I fail to see what we will accomplish other than to make the stack of navboxes in the given articles taller. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- the same is achieved by wrapping the navboxes in {{navboxes}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment: cutting across the grain here, but a split wouldn't be necessary if it weren't for insistence on retaining these space-intensive (and duplicative) links to each and every signer, no matter how minor the historical figure. As an alternative to splitting, I could propose we replace each of these list of biographies with a link to "list of signers of Foo" pagespace. BusterD (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

As I voted, I'm not for a split...but linking to a list? ...I dunno. The whole purpose of a navbox is for guick reference and easy navigation. Again, the duplication is under different headings, or contexts. e.g.Roger Sherman occurs under the Constitution and Continental Association and Articles of Confederation ... and Declaration of Independence subsections. John Hancock occurs under the Articles of Confederation ... and Declaration of Independence subsections. If a reader wants to find out which person signed what document this can be quickly and easily accomplished in one navbox. If a reader has to jump to a list to ascertain these things in every instance it sort of defeats the whole purpose of a navbox. Moreover, if one has to jump to separate navboxes to accomplish this it again undermines the whole purpose of a navbox. All the sections of this navbox are collapsed into one heading bar, so article space isn't an issue. IOW, are we all here to fix what isn't broke, and in the process making it more difficult for an editor to go about what should be a simple task? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Please be aware of several things,

1) This navbox is not expanded but collapsed, so it amounts to one line at every article it is presented at, so Wikipedia space is not an issue.

2) There is no need to add the navboxes to each signers page, this is accomplished by the concise and alphabetical signer's navboxes. The links to the signers is for readers ease when reading the navbox.

3) Some of the confusions here for splitting editors is that the navbox covers too much when, if fact, it condenses and joins the Founding documents of the United States, a valid topic.

4) Wikipedia has hundreds if not thousands of sectioned navboxes. Splits like this are not uncommon, are useful for topic recognition and in this case very useful for full mapping of the topic 'Founding documents of the United States'. If split then many articles will have to have two, three, or even four navboxes in its place, which will do the opposite of the concerns here.

Thanks, Randy Kryn (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

We should also be aware of WP:DETCON : "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Thus far, all we have to back the idea of a split is "duplication", with no qualifying statements that follow, and which ignores the fact that this duplication exists in different sections under different contexts. There is no WP policy that says that a statement of fact, or a title or name, can't be repeated if it's presented under a different section in a different context. It was suggested that if there is a split, the four resultant navboxes can be tucked away under {{navboxes}}, but the existing navbox already contains the different sections under one title bar. So again, we're trying to resolve a problem that doesn't really exist. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
and please note that the visible name of the navbox is Founding documents of the United States, a much more definitive and non-inclusive name than 'Historical American documents'. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Split with the structure proposed by Gwillhickers. It's the best way to avoid unnecessary duplication. Pinguinn 🐧 06:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Share this article:

This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion, and is written by contributors. Text is available under a CC BY-SA 4.0 International License; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] [1]
Dutta, Akash (15 August 2021). The Light of the Hidden Flowers. Global Collective Publishers. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-954021-37-2. Retrieved 10 April 2024.

[2] [2]
Mukhopadhyay, Nirmalya (15 August 2021). The Vision of the Solitary Man. Global Collective Publishers. p. XXIV. ISBN 978-1-954021-35-8. Retrieved 10 April 2024.

[1]

[2]

XFD backlog
V	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	2	22	24
TfD	0	7	7
MfD	0	1	1
FfD	0	0	0
RfD	0	49	49
AfD	0	3	3

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion

How to use this page

What not to propose for discussion here

Reasons to delete a template

Listing a template

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors

Notifying related WikiProjects

Notifying substantial contributors to the template

Twinkle

Discussion

Closing discussion

Current discussions

Template:Uw-wnr4il

Template:Uw6

Template:Uw-vandalism4il

Template:Charyapada

Template:Uw-wnr4im

Old discussions

Completed discussions

Share this article: