Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 February 23

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< February 22 February 24 >

February 23

edit

Template:Francis James Child

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 08:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huge, unwieldy navbox that will only grow as missing articles are created. List of Child Ballads and Category:Child Ballads are more usable and maintainable. Ibadibam (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep per WP:CLN and the fact that it does not detract from reader experience, infact it serves as a useful navigation aid. It is unwieldy, but that is because it has not been organised. It could be organised by date for example and become greatly more usable. I will do this if it is kept. It is no way bigger than many other navboxes in actual size. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you specify what part of CLN you're relying on? As far as I can tell, that guideline leaves the use of navboxes up to consensus. Also, what dates would you use to organize this navbox, considering that the composition dates are mostly unknown, and the works themselves are unrelated? Ibadibam (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • From the nutshell and lead section: Categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles. Although they each have their own advantages and disadvantages, each method complements the others. Meaning the existence of the category and list mean there should also be a navbox, as the three are synergistic, as is further explained in the guideline. Generally the WP:CLN guideline can be used to counter any argument that a Category, List or Navigation template is any more or less useful, usable or maintainable than the other systems. Simply stating that all three systems of organisation are valid options that are advocated by different groups of editors.
The ballads were originally published in ten parts in two versions in 1860 and between 1882 and 1898 under the title The English and Scottish Popular Ballads. Therefore I propose dividing them into ten sections according to the first volume they appeared in, with the volumes arranged by date, and the two editions separated. So rather than 300 unsorted listings, there would be ~20 sub-categories within the template. This would give the navbox better usability and additional useful purpose. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To help illustrate this, I did the first part of volume one (1860 version). Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep per Prince of Thieves, as the topic does not have an infinite number of potential articles. As discussed for {{Simon Property Group}}, a navbox is designed so that an individual can navigate between pages with a minimum number of clicks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I have built a new structure of templates, see Template:Child Ballads and it's 28 sub-templates, which will better deal with the purpose of this navbox. Once it is finished (may take a while) this one can be repurposed as a smaller template for the articles related only to Francis James Child, without the ballards themselves. The new template can then be deployed to replace most of the usage of this one. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow. Wow times 100. This had to have been a ton of work. The navbox has a whole new set of problems now, namely that we've gone from link soup to three levels of drill-downs that require a lot of clicking to get anywhere. But this is a borderline WP:HEY situation now, so I'll take my feedback to Template talk:Child Ballads, unless there are further comments from others. Ibadibam (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I notice that a large portion of the navigation box is disappearing in the middle of a TFD discussion. There are still plenty of articles to keep this navbox. During this discussion, the Child Ballads should remain in the navbox in at least some shape or form, until a more permanent solution is rolled out. BTW, {{South Park episodes}} has a function that only displays the applicable season. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, it only went to my userspace. I think we should do something like that, after the comments here, I created a navbox at User:Prince of Thieves/sandbox/3 which is a possible option. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2018 (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:Verify source

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 08:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between this and {{citation needed}} appears to be trifling at the end scenario. Although the documentation explains the template's difference from citation needed, on the article they are saying and asking the same thing: "This information is unverified -- can you verify it." Redirect this template to CN. !dave 21:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. {{cn}} is for statements that do not have a source. {{vs}} is for statements that do have a source, but where there is doubt about the extent to which they're supported by it. A cn tag right after a reference would be at best confusing. – Uanfala (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verify source is acceptable when there is a reference cited, however the validity of the source is in question. Cocoaguy ここがいい 03:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think Dave you misunderstood these templates. Because even your nomination statement explains their difference (which is of course, vital). {{cn}} is used where there's no citation at all, for example: "Wikipedia is reliable source" ‹The template Fake citation needed is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]. Whilst {{vs}} is used where there's citation but someone is doubting it and cannot access it, especially out-of print books, paywalled and old magazines or papers which can only be verified by special access. Example: "Wikipedia is a completely unreliable source" [1][verification needed]. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I find {{dubious}} much more useful for generating discussion, but on low traffic articles this template is probably fine. -- Kendrick7talk 08:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've just added {{verify source}} to an article in which I think that a statement may be factually incorrect, and the citations are printed ones. That's a different use from either {{citation needed}} or {{dubious}}. Narky Blert (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. We have a whole suite of tags for different issues. As others have said, {{cn}} is inappropriate where there is a source. Now, an argument based on {{dubious}} is slightly stronger - however, a dubious template is stronger wording than this template. This template can be used where a source is offline - hence we WP:AGF (dubious would be doubting the veracity of the statement), but at the same time request verification. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I belive there is a difference between both templates in a narrow sense. Jingiby (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and don't redirect). I know what it does. It is a relic of a time when we had many editors and we could power through any obstacle with the brute force of ample manpower. Nowadays, even {{Citation needed}} is extra. Statements with a {{Citation needed}} will never a get a footnote and statements with a {{verify source}} never get serviced. —Codename Lisa (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2018 (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:Editnotices/Page/Enter your new article name here

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 2018 March 10. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2018 (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:Infobox national volleyball team U19/18

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unnecessary fork of template:infobox national volleyball team, I have added a type parameter to template:infobox national volleyball team so this is no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2018 (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:Battleground video games

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox which does not meet the soft requirement at WP:NENAN. While the series seems extensive, the majority of the articles on the games which comprise it were merged to the series article some time ago. Izno (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2018 (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:MacOS derivations

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 Withdrawn. The template is constantly edited and is too fluid at this time. As it is, no consensus is in sight. One participant clearly says he cannot decide at this time. Also, we seem to have a participant head count problem. (non-admin closure) Codename Lisa (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of a navbox is to help people navigate Wikipedia but we already have a surplus of navboxes for this topic: {{Apple Inc. operating systems}} which closely resembles this one, and {{Mac OS}}, {{macOS}}, {{iOS}} and {{Apple software}}.

However, I strongly believe this navbox is meant to advertise a certain opinion while evading verifiability requirement; this is not the problem with {{Apple Inc. operating systems}}.

Codename Lisa (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - As the creator of the template I'm horribly biased, but I am open to this discussion. (Though, it would have been preferable to first have this discussion on the talk page of the template in question, but so it goes I guess.) The intent of this template is to have all the operating systems that were derived from NeXTSTEP at Apple Inc. in one straightforward table. This began with Mac OS X (later OS X and currently macOS) and Mac OS X Server and was subsequently expanded to the OS for the original Apple TV (initially from Mac OS X 10.4, later iOS 4), iPhone OS (later iOS), watchOS (from iOS 8), tvOS (replacing the previous Apple TV OS, based on iOS 9), and now finally audioOS (based on iOS 11). With the exception of audioOS, which is brand new (and I'm working on it), all of these links between the various operating systems are verifiable and have sources on their respective pages, particularly the version history pages/sections. I'm not sure what Codename Lisa means by advertising an opinion. The template is brand new and probably needs some changes, but I don't think deletion is the solution.
Regarding the similar navboxes mentioned above, in my opinion:
  1. {{Mac OS}} is not relevant at all as it relates to the original Mac OS, prior to Mac OS X.
  2. {{macOS}} is mostly related to the various components of the OS and is large and unwieldy.
  3. {{Apple software}} is also mostly related to other software that Apple makes and is large and unwieldy.
  4. {{Apple Inc. operating systems}} is probably the closest to this template, but it has a lot of additional information and other operating systems that are older and not relevant to any modern Apple platform, furthermore the common links between and among Apple's modern operating systems is completely obscured.
  5. {{iOS}} has more of an emphasis on hardware and does not include anything about the roots of iOS, furthermore it would not be appropriate to have information about other operating systems in this template such as tvOS, watchOS, or audioOS even though they have a common link.
If there is a way this template can be improved or even merged into an existing template without getting lost, I'd be happy to pursue that, but I don't think deletion is the answer (at least right now). ~ PaulT+/C 14:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC) (P.S. My apologies if I'm not doing this correctly. I haven't participated in a deletion discussion in some time.)[reply]
  • Hello, Psantora. And welcome to Templates for Discussion. As its name says, we decide the fate of the templates here and it is not exclusively a venue for deletion. I am open to other outcomes. The problems we need to solve are:
  1. Your creation of this template, regardless of whatever shortcoming you have seen in other templates, has aggrevated the already severe issue of link bombardment.
  2. Your navbox chiefly consistitutes non-navigational items. Every single link you have placed between <small>...</small> tags is redundant as they don't go to unique articles. So are links for "audioOS" and "audioOS 11".
  3. This template presents information in way that clearly conflicts with how the corresponding articles explain them. You have presented "Mac OS X", "OS X" and "macOS" as different operating systems instead of new names for the same thing. You have done the same thing with "iPhone OS" and "iOS", "Apple TV OS" and "tvOS", and "Mac OS X Server", "OS X Server" and "macOS Server". And you didn't stop there. You have explicitly claimed that "iOS" is something based on "iPhone OS". There are many "based on" claims, for which I suspect you have no evidence other that visual similarity. All of these claims require a source and the contradiction must be addressed. A navbox isn't supposed to create new disputes.
  4. I can clearly see subjective bias. For example, in "other operating systems that are older and not relevant to any modern Apple platform", I would question the meaning of "modern", has it not been for the fact that Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, actually cherishes history while you are trying to ostrachize it.
If we solve all these problems and remove all these emblishments, we end up with something slightly less comprehensive than {{Apple Inc. operating systems}}.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, there is a lot to cover here. I'll start with the subjectivity. I was referring to what is written in the template not being opinion- of course my comments here have a point of view. Isn't the point of a discussion here to be convincing and to make a directed point to change someone else's mind? Regardless, I disagree with the point. I am not trying to ostracize history, in fact the opposite and I'm not sure how you jumped to that conclusion. Speaking of subjectivity, how would you determine what link bombardment is if not to make a subjective opinion about what is too many links? My intent was to make a more focused template on those distinct operating systems that have been created by Apple that were derived from NeXTSTEP. The current templates either do not have this detail or include way more information and other, unrelated operating systems that have no relevance to NeXTSTEP. I'm not saying that they don't belong on Wikipedia, just not in this template. How does that translate to ostracizing history?
Regarding the "non-navigational" items, each of those server links in theory could have a full Wikipedia article about them. I understand that is not likely to happen though and it might be better to remove them. audioOS on the other hand is brand new and there will (eventually?) be a separate article about it similar to tvOS and watchOS.
macOS was originally branded as Mac OS X, then OS X, and finally the current macOS. (The same is true for the server.) The template reflects this, why is this wrong?
The same is true of the original iPhone operating system. It was originally "based" on "OS X" (which was still branded as "Mac OS X" at the time, a notable difference) and didn't have an official name until early 2008, almost a year after the phone was released. The name "iPhone OS" was given with the release of the SDK just before iPhone OS 2 was released. It wasn't renamed iOS until 2010. Is it false to say that iOS 4 was based on iPhone OS 3? Would it be better to say "continued from iPhone OS 3" instead? (I made this change.)
Apple TV's operating systems are completely different. The first 3 versions of the OS ran on X86 hardware, the next 4 were an embedded variant of iOS running on ARM that didn't allow for 3rd party development, and then finally a new OS allowing for official development support with a full SDK was released with tvOS. This is why they are separated in the template and this is all backed up by information present in their links.
Perhaps it would be better if some other voices chimed in on this? ~ PaulT+/C 15:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for quoting policy, but I don't think you fully understood what you wrote earlier. You referenced my comments on this page as being subjective as if that was a reason why the template is NPOV and has a bias, which you also stated as part of the initial TfD rationale. I think that is absurd and I don't think it was appropriate.
In addition, while I appreciate your efforts to broaden this discussion, I don't think you fairly represented this discussion when you reached out to a number of editors about this TfD. "this navbox: Is redundant to the {{Apple Inc. operating systems}} navbox. Whatever benefit {{MacOS derivations}} offers can be integrated into the former via editing. Diseminates unreferenced information. A navbox should only help navigate. As such, it should either be deleted or merged." WP:CAMPAIGNING when WP:CANVASSING is not appropriate either. Next time be sure to be neutral when you reach out to people for a discussion like this. - PaulT+/C 01:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC) P.S. Perhaps you will consider amending those messages to not include a PoV (negative or positive) about this discussion? I would appreciate that.[reply]
  • So you won't support your assertion of opinion/PoV/bias in the original rationale for this TfD? Can you strike that from there as well? I think we can agree it is secondary to your main point of redundancy and you have not been able to defend it. I don't see why any of this discussion should be moved to your talk page, you raised this TfD here and I'm responding to it directly in the appropriate venue. - PaulT+/C 14:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should maybe do a little research before you make these kinds of accusations. From the first reference in Apple TV#Software: The operating system on the disk is a stripped down version of OS 10.4.7., which is being quoted from here. The information is supported in the linked articles, with multiple sources in most cases.
Regarding the "transparency" issue, you violated WP:CAMPAIGNING when reaching out to AlistairMcMillan (talk · contribs), Guy Harris (talk · contribs), Warren (talk · contribs), and Comp.arch (talk · contribs) in a non-neutral way. This has a direct impact on this discussion, why shouldn't it be discussed here?
We all make mistakes, myself included. This is a collaborative project and I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt (WP:AGF). All I'm asking is for you to at least attempt to rectify these issues by a) striking the non-neutral language from those messages I referenced above (It is really easy, in fact you have sent neutral TfD notifications before.) and b) removing your unfounded (and unsupported) bias accusations from the last sentence in this TfD. I would appreciate it. If I'm overstepping in some way, please explain how. I don't think I'm being unreasonable. - PaulT+/C 03:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! Aren't we getting a bit tense?
Our policy is Wikipedia:Verifiability not Wikipedia:Reader must research. (Especially, the burden of proof is on you, not me.) You forget the WP:NAVBOX. And your use of the word "accusation" is completely wrong. Contents cannot be "accused" of anything.
Finally, I told you to discuss the WP:CANVASSING is in my talk page, so that I can address it. You didn't. It beckons the question: Do you want it addressed, or are you using it to smear my name and tip the discussion in your favor by casting aspersions? FYI, I very much love to make the participation request neutral by mentioning your side too. But you don't have a side; you didn't even once cited a policy, guideline or consensus in your defense. Worse, two of your message threads start with "if"! The only thing I could do for you is to exclude the mention of all other navboxes from my request and only mention {{Apple Inc. operating systems}} because you wrote that it "is probably the closest to this template". If you had come to my talk page, I could ask you about whether you really have a side, but you did. When you have a concern about my conduct, the fastest avenue of addressing it is coming to my talk page. Few other users extend you such courtesy.
Some regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are talking in circles.
  • Round 1:
  • I stated I didn't know what you meant by I strongly believe this navbox is meant to advertise a certain opinion while evading verifiability requirement in your TfD rationale. (Which, whether you want to admit it or not, is an accusation by the way.)
  • You responded by quoting something from my response here as having a subjective bias.
  • I responded that this was absurd because of course my responses here are opinion. This page is a venue for making convincing arguments.
  • You then responded by quoting policy that supports my point without actually addressing my point. Quite an ironic accomplishment, actually.
  • Round 2:
  • I again asked for what you thought was my opinion in this template.
  • You quoted something in the template and stated it was unverifiable.
  • I provided the direct reference(s) for the quote, which is present in the relevant Wikipedia article. That was what I meant by research, not exactly difficult or unreasonable.
  • You then again responded by quoting policy without addressing the valid references for my point.
I believe you are mistaken. Unless... are you suggesting that every single fact in every single navbox needs their own individual reference in addition to the references present in the linked articles? Because that would be quite the assertion.
Everything in the template is verifiable by visiting the links in the navbox, which is how I understand verifiability in navboxes to work. If I'm wrong about that, then a whole lot of navboxes will need new references in order to comply with your draconian interpretation of the verifiability standard, including (hypocritically) {{Apple Inc. operating systems}}, which doesn't have individual references outside of the linked pages about A/UX's shipping or Taligent's cancellation just as two examples. (And if anything in these templates are actually not supported by references please point it out so we can improve the relevant articles by adding the needed references.)
  • Regarding WP:CAMPAIGNING, it is defined as: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.
You just admitted the messages you sent were not neutral: I very much love to make the participation request neutral by mentioning your side too. But you don't have a side. Quite frankly, that isn't for you to determine. There are four very clear rules when WP:CANVASSING: limited posting scale, neutral message, nonpartisan audience, and open transparency. All you had to write was "you are invited to comment on the discussion" or something similar. You can see how clear the difference between a neutral and non-neutral message is here. Discussing the argument directly on a user's talk page when canvassing violates the guideline: Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent.
  • First, that isn't a policy or a guideline, it just describes general established practice;
  • Second, it only applies when not backed up by facts or reasonable cause, which I think I have demonstrated; and
  • Third, it references suggesting egregious or severe behavior, the latter I would actually argue against -- this really isn't that big of a deal unless this is a repeated pattern of behavior.
Given those three things, do you think it would be warranted if I were?
I haven't brought this to your talk page because it is directly relevant to this discussion and I don't really think it was all that disruptive despite your violation of the guideline. I do think it was inappropriate though and all I'm asking is for you to retract (the non-neutral part of) your messages and admit you made a mistake. - PaulT+/C 09:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged BladesGodric 08:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: The distinction between "Mac OS X", "OS X" and "macOS" reads wrong to me, as does the distinction between "iPhone OS" and "iOS". As the creator of this new template has said they are just branding names. There is no significant technical difference between "iPhone OS" and "iOS". One is not derived from the other, to any greater degree than iOS 11 is derived from iOS 10. Similarly with "Mac OS X", "OS X" and "macOS"; they are just three different names for the same thing.
Right now Template:Apple Inc. operating systems and Template:Mac OS History are almost identical. They should be merged, and any interesting information from this new template (like the distinction between Mac OS X based version of Apple TV OS and iOS based versions of Apple TV OS) should be merged into that template. No one needs three templates with almost the same information in each. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You also suggest a merge with Template:macOS derivations, which I am not opposed to out of hand (as I wrote in my first response), but my concern is that the linkage and common lineage between macOS, Apple TV Software, iOS, watchOS, tvOS, and audioOS would be lost in a larger, more comprehensive template. Do you have any suggestions for how this might work? It is very easy to say to merge without having to think through how it would actually look when it is merged.
Thanks for the comments, - PaulT+/C 01:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure yet: Some issues I have with the current template are:
    • Is a list of those Apple operating systems that are derived from NeXTStEP important enough to deserve a template?
    • Having separate rows for the three different names for Apple's UN*X-for-Macs is bogus, as it might lead people to think that Mac OS X, OS X, and macOS are different OSes, which they are not. The correct way to present that OS is the way it's presented in, for example, Template:Apple Inc. operating systems, with a single row with all three names in the one column and all of the OS versions in the next column. The same applies to iPhone OS/iOS.
    • "{Mac OS X, OS X, macOS} Server" is also not a separate OS; it used to be a different packaging of the same OS, with some additional tools added on and some additional server capabilities enabled (depending on what type of server license you bought), and then became an add-on package for regular macOS containing the additional tools.
    • For that matter, do we really need the version history here? Guy Harris (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Guy Harris, in order:
  • NeXTSTEP-derived operating systems are the basis of Apple's entire current product line - macOS (Macs), iOS (iPhone and iPad), tvOS (Apple TV), watchOS (Apple Watch), and audioOS (HomePod). Is it important enough for a template? I think that is why we are having this discussion. I believe it is.
  • The macOS vs. OS X and Mac OS X (and iPhone OS/iOS) having separate rows was my attempt to show the change in names of these related OSes over time, but clearly this is not coming across as I intended. It is clear that the other templates handle this differently. I'll change this to reflect the existing consensus.  Done
  • Regarding the server OSes, I was under the impression that up until 10.6 they were separate OSes with a (mostly) common codebase between "Mac OS X Server" and the regular version of "Mac OS X". I agree that subsequent versions are little more than an additional suite of applications bundled with the normal OS, which is why I removed them from the template.
  • I thought the version history links for the 5 major derivations were a useful addition at the bottom since there isn't really a place for them in each derivation's row as they aren't individual OSes on their own.
Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it. - PaulT+/C 05:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The name changes are just random Apple marketing actions (I'm not sure why the heck they dropped "Mac", but the original name was probably intended to emphasize, with the "Mac OS", that this was the next generation of OSes for Macs so as not to scare the current user base, and "macOS" is probably intended to emphasize that it's part of a *OS family, along with iOS and tvOS and watchOS, to make its purpose clearer to the current user base, many of whom have probably never heard of "Mac OS 9"). They have no deep significance; those who care about them can look at macOS for a discussion.
As for Mac OS X Server vs. MacOS, that's "mostly common" as in "same binaries, some of which check whether there's a /System/Library/CoreServices/ServerVersion.plist file and behave differently, or at least used to do so before Lion, and some of which only shipped with the version of the OS named "Server"". They were packaged separately, but it's not as if they were built completely separately with different compiler options.
And my question about the version history is whether it's needed anywhere in the template. Guy Harris (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, I get that the changes to the macOS name over time are basically meaningless to the actual code it is based on. Regardless, they are grouped together again.
I think separating out server makes sense. The differences are for sure minor, but they were separate products from the normal OS.
Is there a compelling reason for removing the version history? I added them because I think it they are relevant to the other links and I think they improve the template.
On those last two points, I'm not going to go crazy defending them. My main concern is the template as a whole and clearly conveying the link between all of Apple's current operating systems and how they share a common core. None of the existing templates show this and I don't see an easy way to shoehorn this into an existing template either. - PaulT+/C 05:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Guy Harris: I combined the Server links into the macOS section as per your comments. Also, regarding the version history links, some of the information in this template is based on references present in those articles, so per WP:V I think they need to be included. Let me know what you think. The last point about the template as a whole above still stands. Thanks, - PaulT+/C 19:22, 9 March 2018 (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:Imran Khan

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NAVBOX purpose is to help user move from one article to another. This temp isn't useful (no article is actually his work) and comes under WP:TCREEP. Not every article needs NAVBOX and we can use 'See also' section for one or two article not NAVBOX. Störm (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2018 (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:Kind of Blue

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Each song already has a link to other songs on the album, and the Kind of Blue article has a song list. Squandermania (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2018 (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/2018_February_23&oldid=829732177"