Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 December 1

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< November 30 December 2 >

December 1

edit

Opal fares

edit
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 relisted on 2017 December 14. Primefac (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2017 (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:TeamPositionChampionSwap

edit
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 for multiple reasons:

AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2017 (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:Albanians Got Talent

edit
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. Primefac (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to justify a navbox --woodensuperman 16:58, 1 December 2017 (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:Black Hippy

edit
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. Primefac (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unnecessary. Only links the members, and one song, which is a Jay Rock song anyway. --woodensuperman 12:01, 1 December 2017 (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:Selena Gomez songs

edit
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 merge.

Consensus has been reached where the two navboxes do not need to be kept separate in order to aid navigation. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 02:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Selena Gomez songs with Template:Selena Gomez.
No justification for two navboxes. The main {{Selena Gomez}} navbox only has about six four additional articles that aren't linked in the "songs" navbox, so this can all be easily handled by a single navbox. THIS seems to be the last good version. --woodensuperman 14:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you can claim that the standard layout for musical artist navboxes is incomprehensible! If you really need it explaining, the first group has a chronological list of albums, the next a chronological list of singles, etc, etc. It couldn't be clearer or simpler. I can't see how anyone could possibly find it difficult to understand. However, you're clearly just opposing this as a matter of misguided principle and haven't considered why we would possibly need an extra navbox for four additional links. --woodensuperman 15:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your version is incomprehensible to a normal person cause it groups her songs into non-intuitive categories ("Singles", "Promotional singles", "Other songs") instead of grouping them by album. For example, your version has "Birthday" (from the album Stars Dance) in the "Other songs" section and "Me & the Rhythm" (from the 2015 album Revival) in the "Promotional singles" section. When everything is grouped by album, it is much more intuitive. A normal person is more likely to know that "Me & the Rhythm" is from Selena Gomez's latest album than that is was a promotional single. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think a "normal person" may not know which album a song is from, having heard it on the radio, etc, etc. An unbroken chronological list of singles is the most intuitive grouping, as it assumes no prior knowledge of the artist. --woodensuperman 13:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The average person is much more likely looking to know what album a song is from so they can download/stream it or perhaps go buy a physical copy than whether it had a single release. It's easier to find that out when sorted into columns by album rather than scattering an album's tracks among multiple columns. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Especially nowadays, when music consumption is not as album-centric as it was in the previous few decades. --woodensuperman 15:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm getting at is that by knowing what album a track is from, people have a better sense of what to search for when they'd like to buy or stream it even if only interested in that one song. Sorting by album is therefore not only more logically organized but also neater rather than scattered. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I disagree. We are not a tool to aid purchasing. By splitting up the singles chronology in favour of grouping songs by album, you lose the career progression. If a song is a single, then this is a more defining characteristic than which album it was on. You would not break it up at Selena Gomez discography, you should not do that here. --woodensuperman 15:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously didn't take into account the fact that navboxes aren't supposed to be singles discographies and shouldn't be treated as such, especially for cases like this when not all songs that warrant articles are singles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact a song is a single is far more important than what album it is on. By splitting it by album, it is very difficult to find the singles amid the less notable album tracks, and creates unnecessary clutter. This does our readers a disservice, especially as they are not necessarily aware of the album the single is from. As I state above, we should assume no prior knowledge of the artist. --woodensuperman 15:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you fucking kidding me!? Single release (or lack thereof) isn't pertinent to song navboxes unlike discography or album articles and you very well know it (particularly when not every song that warrants an article is a single). Calling certain tracks "notable" or "less notable" is blatantly biased, and personal opinions on tracks don't belong here. I seriously doubt the average person would be concerned with whether something had a single release when looking for song articles here. Calling album organization "unnecessary clutter" is also total bullshit when everything from an era/sub-era is in one place. Furthermore, it most certainly does NOT presume readers have any prior knowledge, contrary to what you've implied. *Shakes head in disappointment* Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your descent into this kind of language yet again demonstrates again how unreasonable you are to deal with. I'm fed up with this, but I will add that no, I am not fucking kidding. A navbox should be chronological, and grouping the singles together makes 100% sense. THIS is intuitive, and THIS is how we best serve our readers. Look at how unhelpful {{Beastie Boys singles}} is. Their first three singles are lost in the "Other singles" section, when they should clearly be the first three entries, this is not split by era as you claim, and this will always be the case when non-album singles are around. Splitting down into albums has made us sacrifice an important piece of the chronology. --woodensuperman 16:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No; my language if anything demonstrates my frustration with how flawed your reasoning is and refusal to listen to logic. I'm actually a reasonable person. Anyway, navboxes ≠ discography articles (even if the only songs that warrant articles are singles), therefore single chronology isn't a focus for them. The general viewing public isn't likely to care what order singles were released in unless they're looking a discography page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're navigating between songs and/or albums, the assumption is that you would want to see where in someone's career these fall. You look at one single article, and then navigate to the single after that, and the single after that, etc, etc. The same logic applies for novels or films in navigation boxes dedicated to them. This is why we don't put navboxes in alphabetical order. For most musical artists, their singles are the way most people are introduced to the artist, so we should not be splitting these down. We've both said a lot on this subject now, I think that our respective points of view are clear. I'm done now. I'm not going to descend into your "flawed reasoning"/"refusal to listen to logic" bullshit. --woodensuperman 16:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is interested in career placement, the average person is more likely looking to know what album it came from, so they'll have a sense of which collection came out when. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Some of the merge comments talking about precedents of previous discussions misread the consensus, it is not that all song/singles templates should be merged with the main navigational templates, but that there is a certain point where there are too many song/singles to justify having a single template and splitting it into two makes for better navigation. Having said that, this template is not to that point. Aspects (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 05:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, results in a better template and per other performers' templates. Songs do not have to be broken up into individual albums on templates, they are a stand-alone work as well as being part of the album. The format seems to be used for songs, short stories on author's templates, and poetry throughout Wikipedia's templates. Nice work by woodensuperman to format the examples of this and other performers-output templates listed below. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2017 (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:Katy Perry songs

edit
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 merge to Template:Katy Perry. Consensus has been reached where the two navboxes do not need to be kept separate in order to aid navigation. Some arguments additionally pointed out that some navigation is lost by keeping them separate. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 02:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Katy Perry songs with Template:Katy Perry.
No need for two navboxes. Can easily sit at this version without being remotely "bloated" as one editor seems to believe. By unnecessarily forcing this into two navboxes, you lose a dimension of navigability as you cannot navigate between the articles on the songs navbox and the articles on the main navbox, not to mention losing the full chronology of singles, etc. --woodensuperman 15:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose no navigability is lost at all by splitting. If anything, it's actually improved by helping people see which songs came from what album, and chronology of singles belongs in a discography article rather than a navbox when her singles aren't the only songs she's made that warrant pages. It also helps the main one from being inflated (which is supposed to be an overview instead of a song collection list). You obviously don't care at this point about whether something gets overfilled and are dismissing size concerns for no valid reason. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. With the navbox split, you cannot navigate to (for example) Katy Perry videography from any of the singles articles. --woodensuperman 15:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
People are much more likely to navigate to a musician's biography or an album page from a song, so you're clearly just looking for far-fetched excuses to justify a needless bloat (and doing a poor job at defending it). Going from videography to singles pages isn't of much (if any) concern. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not "looking for far-fetched excuses". We serve our readers best by having a single navbox for each topic, so that they can navigate however they please with all the articles at hand. Only when a navbox really does get too big (and this is not remotely the case here) should we consider splitting into smaller navboxes. As for your comments regarding my "poor job at defending it", I would suggest you remain WP:CIVIL, this is completely unnecessary. --woodensuperman 16:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Criticizing one's actions as subpar isn't the same as being uncivil. Anyway, you most certainly ARE just making excuses to defend something that does much more bad than good; don't try to pretend like you don't know that. When over half of the 50+ pages pertaining to a subject are song articles, it's unquestionably enough to warrant a split. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not exactly uncivil, but you're clearly trying to goad me. Please WP:AGF. I am most definitely NOT just making excuses. I sincerely believe that our readers are best served with all articles related to a topic contained in a single navbox. I also believe that the best way of presenting a list of singles in a navbox is as a clean single group chronology. I find the navboxes which have these chronologies destroyed by grouping the singles by album to be counter-intuitive and cluttered. --woodensuperman 16:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you do have good intentions, what I'm trying to do above all else is demonstrate how your reasoning is flawed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with my reasoning. The issue is nothing more than a difference of opinion of how this information is best presented. I am certainly not alone in my opinion, just as you are not alone in yours. We'll just have to agree to disagree. --woodensuperman 16:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a total crock of shit when A) it DOES NOT duplicate listings by having songs in their own navbox, B) One can much more easily see specific songs when not jumbled into ridiculously big groups, and C) there is no "established precedent" against song's having their own navbox (especially when there's a big collection taking up more than half of total pages pertaining to a subject), contrary to what you've implied. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Merging constitutes creating a bloated up navbox with undistinguishable songs. As SNUGGUMS said, there is and never was any precedent set for this kind of merge. Woodensuperman did basically act on his own accord and starting disrupting. —IB [ Poke ] 06:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not look at the previous discussions I posted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 13#Template Taylor Swift songs, which demonstrates a clear precedent in other similar cases? --woodensuperman 09:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it a "precedent" is a stretch; don't make exaggerations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever this comes up at TFD it nearly always results in a merge or a delete. I wouldn't call it a stretch to call that a precedent. Here's a few more for you:
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 6#Template:Hilary Duff songs
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 19#Template:Meghan Trainor songs
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 22#Template:Nina Sky songs
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 21#Template:Sum 41 singles
--woodensuperman 16:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're obviously not taking into account the amount of articles that were/weren't songs. In Sum 41's case, they had more songs over time where it later got to the point that a separate navbox was warranted. As for the others, small amount of songs in comparison. You're incorrectly implying the notion is as simple as "always put songs in main navbox". Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Some of the merge comments talking about precedents of previous discussions misread the consensus, it is not that all song/singles templates should be merged with the main navigational templates, but that there is a certain point where there are too many song/singles to justify having a single template and splitting it into two makes for better navigation. While more songs than Selema Gomez's above, the number of song is about equal to the other number of links in the template, so the template is not needed at this point. Aspects (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 05:05, 1 December 2017 (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:Taylor Swift songs

edit
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. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 02:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Some of the template above are merged because it only have little song in a row (see before merged: Template:Avicii songs and Template:A Day to Remember singles, the other are deleted) while Swift's template has more than 5 songs per row. Also there are some templates that is not merged like {{Madonna songs}} and {{Queen singles}}. Hddty. (talk) 15:34, 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]
Surely you jest; it very needlessly clutters the main navbox to have all song pages listed, and we could avoid all of that by having separate navboxes. It looks so much cleaner and concise without all of them listed, which I've now counted as 57, over twice the total of everything else combined at 21. No valid reason not to split with totals like that. The negatives of having one navbox here easily outweigh any potential positives. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course I don't jest. There is no clutter whatsoever, this is a pretty standard number of links for navboxes of this kind. 57 articles is not a lot by any standards, and certainly not enough to necessitate a split! There are no negatives to having just one navbox for Taylor Swift. --woodensuperman 14:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fucking ridiculous; when over half of the pages listed are songs (roughly 73% in this case) and there's 50+ total pages, it's more than enough reason to split! The biggest negatives are bloating and faulty-at-best organization (especially when not sorted by album). Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's "fucking ridiculous" to have two navboxes for a single artist with only 50+ articles to link. Oh and actually, the "by album" sorting is problematic, as you lose the opportunity for a properly chronological singles progression, which is a far better way to present the group to our readers. --woodensuperman 15:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's too singles-centric to group everything by singles and non-singles; the navbox isn't supposed to be a singles discography and those aren't the only types of songs that have articles. With album sorting, readers get a better sense of which songs came from where. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That sort of information is for a discography article, not a navbox. A chronological progression is the best way to present articles in a navbox. You're worried about bloating, yet there is nothing that causes bloat more than a lot of additional groups. Again, compare other navboxes, {{R.E.M.}} or {{Kate Bush}}, etc, etc, etc, where one navbox with a single group for singles does an excellent job. --woodensuperman 15:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, that just gives undue emphasis to singles over non-singles. Furthermore, the albums that songs come from isn't just discography detail; it's also pertinent to "List of songs recorded by _______" pages (which don't include things solely based on whether they had single releases). Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Emphasis of singles over non-singles is not undue, as singles are usually more well known than album tracks. I agree that the information regarding which album a single comes from belongs in "List of songs by" articles as well as discographies, but this information is not needed in a navbox. --woodensuperman 15:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're obviously not getting the point; whether a song was released as a single isn't pertinent to a navbox the way it is to a discography page. Even if her singles were the only songs that warranted articles (which isn't the case), it would still bloat the navbox by listing those and would look even worse when not organized by album (creates a ridiculously huge listing compared to other groups). Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TRUE per my comments HERE --woodensuperman 09:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. There are four rows on the singles column on the merged version; it would be five rows taking into account that "Safe & Sound" and "I Don't Wanna Live Forever" actually must be on the singles column instead of the Collaborations section, besides that, having that many articles overloaded in one section makes the chronological singles progression really hard to follow. If your complain is that users won't be able to find the songs on the main template, then they can click on the list about Tay's songs that it's located just below Taylor's name and between her videography and live performances lists. Also, you can't compare Adele to Taylor because the latter has WAY MORE articles; the chronology of singles doesn't really matter for the songs template, and, like SNUGGUMS said, you can't just focus on the singles when there's many articles about Taylor's songs that were not singles. I agree with SNUGGUMS to keep the two templates splitted because it is needed to have one that offers an overview and another that compiles her songs, which are the 73% of her articles. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Also note this prior discussion. --woodensuperman 15:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, those cases are different from Taylor. She has a lot of articles about songs thats were not singles, she has released so many singles that they would be overloaded on one section of the merged template. That's why is needed to keep splitted in two templates, one for the overview, and another one for the songs (the songs, where the chronology of the singles is not important). Every case you cite can't be compared to Taylor, because, like I said before, the amount of articles is just bigger, and not focused exclusively to the singles. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. {{R.E.M.}} has a number of non-single songs and it is handled quite simply. No need to make a special case here. --woodensuperman 16:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The case you just mentioned above is way worse than this one; it has never been splitted, so there has never been a consensus to keep it as one template. It is necessary to open a votation there to split it into two templates, because it's hard to follow the singles chronology and having another template for the songs would be better. Paparazzzi (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But there has been consensus. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 5#Template:R.E.M. singles. --woodensuperman 09:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a consensus from 2009, and the only comparable case you have found. Like I said, independently to whathever some user from that time said, that template looks horribly overloaded and needs to be splitted. Anyway, going back to here, I still oppose to this template being merged, and it seems that most of the users who has voted think the same as me. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Some of the merge comments talking about precedents of previous discussions misread the consensus, it is not that all song/singles templates should be merged with the main navigational templates, but that there is a certain point where there are too many song/singles to justify having a single template and splitting it into two makes for better navigation. The number of song links vastly outnumbers the number of other links in the combined template as stated above, so in this case I feel it makes for better navigation. Aspects (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 05:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I at first was skeptical but after looking at the proposed template, and reading the comments, this seems the appropriate way to go for a one-place understandable template per other performers' templates. It is also standard template practice for short stories, poems, paintings listed as both a series and as individual pieces on artist's templates, etc. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Moscow Connection, Indian Bio, and Paparazzzi's listed reasons. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2017 (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:Best works

edit
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. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 01:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well intended template, but it just doesn't have enough entries to justify its existence. There is nothing here that a "see also" section can't easily handle. It has been around a year now and hasn't evolved. Betty Logan (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When the two templates are so gosh-darn similar, an article shouldn't be used to point to as some kind of fix-all solution... Fireflyfanboy (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the people who post only those three words are referring to the fact that the navbox contains too few items. This was the reason I support the deletion of this template, anyway. The worst works template contains more articles and stands on its own. Maybe a merger of the two is an option, though. ~Mable (chat) 14:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this one more week to see if consensus emerges.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 04:53, 1 December 2017 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_December_1&oldid=1140396875"