Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 May 17

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< May 16
May 18 >

May 17

edit

Template:RuPaul's Secret Celebrity Drag Race

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clear breach of WP:PERFNAV. These people are all already celebrities so they are just one of many appearances on a TV show for these individuals. That just leaves us with two season articles and the main article. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 08:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodensuperman, check Template:Big Brother UK and Template:Big Brother in the United States, and the others that involved celebrities from the BB Celebrities spin-offs. — JuanGLP (talk + contribs) 15:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF. WP:PERFNAV is the relevant and prevailing guideline here. Winning a single episode of a TV series is not really a major achievement that is navboxworthy. --woodensuperman 15:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well a second season premiered with a different format, which only had one winner (just like RuPaul's Drag Race). A third season was confirmed/renewed for this year, and will probably follow the S2 format. — JuanGLP (talk + contribs) 15:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still, these are celebrities, therefore any appearance is just one more in a list of performances, which clearly fails WP:PERFNAV. Consider Dustin Milligan. His performance on Schitt's Creek is far more noteworthy than his appearance on Drag Race, so the inclusion of this navbox on his page gives WP:UNDUE weight to this single performance over another. This is why WP:PERFNAV exists. --woodensuperman 15:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 17 May 2023 (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:Drag Race Sverige

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERFNAV. Do we really need a navbox for three contestants on a TV show that are already linked in the relevant article? WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 10:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Prefer to add Robert Fux and judges, plus the template will just be recreated once a second season premieres because then there will be two season pages. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Judges should not be added as they are presenting appearances on TV shows per WP:PERFNAV. --woodensuperman 13:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree but whatever. My vote remains keep for navigation purposes and because the template's just likely to be recreated as the series continues. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to re-create once a suitable number of articles are in existence, but I don't think we're there yet. --woodensuperman 13:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's "a suitable number"? Seems subjective. Are there not specific rules about number of entries required? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NENAN suggests a "rule of five" in addition to the primary article, but it's not set in stone. --woodensuperman 14:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's just an essay. Anyways, I've cast my vote to keep and I'll let others weigh in. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I have created a template for a music girl group, that ended being deleted due to having one/two links. The template is required to five links at minimum.
Example: DR:Belgique announced the judges' panel in January 2023, a template was created with the judges, which is WP:TOOSOON; I'm surprised that no one called out about it. Until April, we only update the template when a winner is announced. The template now have four links, which still doesn't meet the template's requirements.
I believe a DR template should be created when a second/third season is about to premiere. — JuanGLP (talk + contribs) 14:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 17 May 2023 (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:Drag Race Belgique

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judges clearly fail WP:PERFNAV as they are already known prior to appearing on this TV show, this leaves a single contestant with an article. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 11:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Also, we'll want to add both season pages as soon as season 2 details are made public. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there were season articles, that would only leave you with three articles. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 13:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, four if you were to count the parent article but remove the judges (which is not my preference). ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Judges and hosts should not be included in navboxes per WP:PERFNAV which is quite clear on the subject. --woodensuperman 13:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I don't agree but whatever. My vote remains keep for navigation purposes and because the template's just going to be recreated as the show continues. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer + @Woodensuperman: This is copied from the discussion under DR:Sverige.
Weak Keep - I have created a template for a music girl group, that ended being deleted due to having one/two links. The template is required to five links at minimum.
Example: DR:Belgique announced the judges' panel in January 2023, a template was created with the judges, which is WP:TOOSOON; I'm surprised that no one called out about it. Until April, we only update the template when a winner is announced. The template now have four links, which still doesn't meet the template's requirements.
I believe a DR template should be created when a second/third season is about to premiere. — JuanGLP (talk + contribs) 14:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 17 May 2023 (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:Slant Six Games

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 01:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary navbox based upon a defunt developer. Four games total, three entries in the SOCOM U.S. Navy SEALs series (and covered by {{SOCOM U.S. Navy SEALs}}) and one in the Resident Evil series. Not needed. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:07, 17 May 2023 (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:Vital article

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 Incorporate this template's information into the {{WikiProject banner shell}} area. There's a clear consensus that something be done with this template. Most editors favor incorporation into the part of the talk page covered by {{WikiProject banner shell}}, though many were unclear whether they prefer this template (or a WPBannerMeta version of it) be listed along with the WikiProjects, or truly merged into {{WikiProject banner shell}} as an icon or text (many called for "merging" into banner shell, but then made clear in their rationales they merely meant to place this template with the other WikiProject templates). Due to that ambiguity, I can't read consensus to truly merge this template anywhere. No prejudice against a future proposal that clearly lays out that difference. In the meantime, the template stays intact, and should probably be placed with the other WikiProject templates (though that's largely outside the scope of WP:TFD, hence the prior discussion at WT:TPL). Ajpolino (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Vital article into Template:Talk header.
This nomination is part of an ongoing effort to consolidate and simplify talk page banners to combat banner blindness. The vital article template has long been a perennial banner bloat offender because 90% of the information on it is unneeded. Consider a typical use, which might look something like this:

If you can improve it, please do is classic bloat of the good-advice-but-not-here variety. There are already plenty of places on Wikipedia where we encourage editors to be bold, so the only reason to add another entreaty here would be if boldness were somehow more needed on vital articles than on other articles, and that's not the case.

The quality rating is basically useless, since the article's rating will be available in the project banners, and the Vital Articles project, unlike a few traditional topic-focused projects, has never had any sort of independent assessment metrics. (We're moving away from project-based assessments anyways.)

Even the vital topic categorization (e.g. in People) is only marginally useful, since in most cases it'll be obvious.

When we strip all that away, the only salient piece of information left is that the article has been listed at a given level. This is useful, since it can serve as a signal to help direct attention. For instance, let's say an editor is gnoming and comes to an article like Mansa Musa and its talk page. Not knowing much about West African history, they haven't heard of Musa, don't bother to read the lead section, and aren't inclined to stick around very long. But on seeing the level-3 designation, they're alerted to the fact that Musa is a very important historical figure, and that the article on him ought to be prioritized for improvement beyond its current C-class status.

However, it doesn't make sense to have an entire banner just for that one piece of info, especially given that many vital article talk pages are already quite full, making space there all the tighter if we wish to avoid bloat. Therefore, I propose to merge the vital article designation into the upper right corner of the talk header banner, where it can be presented concisely as e.g.   VA-3 (using a tooltip to provide additional context for novice editors or those who care about the topic categorization):

This sort of consolidation has precedent in that we did a similar thing two years ago with the former {{Auto archiving notice}}. As with that merge, there will be a few rare edge cases, in this case articles that have the vital banner but not the talk header (if anyone can get Petscan to work, feel free to share numbers); under this proposal, the header will be added to those (which it probably should have been already). I should also note as context that WP:Talk page layout was recently changed to suggest collapsing the vital banner into the project banner shell out of a similar desire to reduce its prominence, but it has not yet been widely implemented, does not solve the issue for articles that don't have a collapsed banner shell, and has been controversial because the vital articles project is different in kind from traditional topic-focused wikiprojects.

Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as nominator. Fundamentally, this will eliminate the bloat from the vital article banner, clearing up space for and helping focus attention on other banners that have important messages, while still preserving the one salient piece of information that an article has been listed as vital at a given level. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Updating my !vote, in light of discussion below, that I'm also okay merging to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, where it would appear in the shell header as described here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – long overdue. The VA banner is fundamentally that of a WikiProject and has always belonged in the project tags. Note that if merged, MOS:ORDER will have to be updated. Aza24 (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal seems to be at odds with what you have written. The current consensus is that the template is put with project banners. The proposed change is to move it away from that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Remove as a separate banner – no opinion on whether it's better as a project tag or in the talk header. – Aza24 (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, no need for the bloat. But I'd like to get rid of the bloat in the talk header template as well. It was designed for contentious topics (only), and that still shows. "Assume good faith ... avoid personal attacks ..." - do we really need that on every vital article? How about making "contentious=yes" a condition in which all that general stuff is shown, but for normal articles - which should be most - just have information about the specific article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll reply on your talk about that, as there's certainly a lot to discuss there but it goes beyond the scope of this discussion. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per reasoning below: Merge, but not to Talkheader, but to Bannershell. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The proposed change to the talk header banner looks very nice. The removal of a banner reduces the feeling of being overwhelmed, especially especially by new users venturing onto the Talk namespace. It makes so much sense to add it to the talk header template! SWinxy (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The proposed change also has the beneficial side effect of further de-emphasizing the vital topic categorization, which exists mainly for organizational convenience. The level the article is on is all that really matters. Cobblet (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note: we just had a discussion about this template at Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout which resulted in consensus to move the template down with the project banners. As I just implemented the consensus of this discussion yesterday I have to question the timing of this nomination Sdkb. At the very least can you ensure that the participants of that discussion are notified? I have comments on the merits of this nomination too, these will follow — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned the other nomination at the bottom of the nomination statement above, MSGJ. I had been meaning to make this nomination for a while (and indeed forecasted my intentions in a comment there), so seeing that that conversation had been concluded with what I'd consider a well-intentioned approach that doesn't quite get to the heart of the issue helped prompt me to get the ball rolling here. I think this is a more elegant approach for the reasons I spelled out. Happy to drop a note there to notify folks of this discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have recently been contributing to VA. This feels like a backward step imho. I see the VA as the "Encyclopedia Britannica" inside Wikipedia. There are a lot of marginal articles in Wikipedia (some are GA-rated and even FA-rated), and I think the VA process is important to fulfilling Wikipedia's goal of providing free access to the most important knowledge. Yes, Level 5 is problematic, and maybe just too big to handle given the smaller size of the active Wikipedia community. However, perhaps we should re-emphasize Levels 1 to 4, and just do this for Level 5? Again, I am a novice here, but I would think that the VA process should be at least as important to Wikipedia's mission as the GA/FA process? Aszx5000 (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, wrong target, the merge target should be {{WikiProject Vital Articles}}, not talkheader. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This should not be merged there, that is a project-page only template, whereas the template under discussion is for actual articles. CMD (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. See MSGJ's comment above. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not every vital article has a talk header. Merging into Wikiproject banner shell is a much better solution. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Vital articles really should have a talk header. Lots of talk pages should have the talk header that don't. Not having one doesn't mean a merge ought not to happen. There were many instances were the merger of {{Auto archiving notice}} that didn't also have a talk header. When the merge was done over a period of months, the talk header was just added. SWinxy (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SWinxy Sorry for the late reply. However these situations are different as AAN could be replaced by archives, not vital article. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on merits (as well as my concern expressed above about the forumshop-esque way this has been proposed). This might be a good candidate for a merge but {{Talk header}} is almost certainly the wrong target. The talk header template is about how editors should behave on a talk page. It is unrelated to the assessment, importance or progression of an article. As Aaron says, not every article has the talk header template (and PLEASE do not add to every talk page!) Moreover editors frequently (and understandably) remove the template to reduce clutter. I have a few better alternative suggestions below:
    1. Convert to {{WPBannerMeta}} and move it inside the banner shell. This was the consensus of the recent discussion, and I have already started work on this since yesterday. The shell can be collapsed so this template will not take up any additonal space.
    2. Merge to {{Article history}}
    3. Merge to {{WikiProject banner shell}}
    — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk header has lots of information beyond just editor behavior. It has the find sources bar, the list of article policies like WP:Verifiability (not pictured above because it only appears in mainspace talk), talk archive links, etc. This will add a bit more info to it, but that's a feature, not a bug — part of the reason banner bloat is such a big problem is because we currently give every piece of information its own banner, rather than presenting all the most important piece of info in talk header.
    Trying to deemphasize the banner by turning it into a project banner, as in alt suggestions #1/#3, is an understandable but misguided approach. It doesn't solve the core problem that 90% of the information on the banner is unneeded — it just sometimes pushes that bloat to a less-prominent position where it is still bloat. "Sometimes" because it doesn't do anything for vital articles that don't have a collapsed banner. And it's also a poor fit because the vital articles project is different in kind from traditional wikiprojects that focus on articles in a particular topic area.
    {{Article history}} would be a poor fit because that template is exclusively about the history of an article's quality assessment, and a vital article designation is not a quality assessment. Also, I'd expect far more vital article talk pages to be missing the article history banner than the talk header banner.
    Regarding articles that don't have the talk header banner, my guess is that it's a small group. Are you or anyone else able to get PetScan to work to give us a count? Data would be helpful, but presuming that's true we shouldn't let the exception dictate the rule. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On further consideration, perhaps merge into Template:WP1.0 is the best option. This template already tags articles as vital (although does not yet the level or topic functionality). It is built on WPBM and collapses inside the shell, which is what people are looking for — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The proposed change to the talk header makes it feel less overwhelming. In a similar way to the auto archiving notice, this would improve the way the talk header would look like. -- Wesoree (talk·contribs) 13:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The proposed change would offer a far more navigable layout, and is one that would be far better than merging into any of the other templates proposed here. :3 F4U (they/it) 15:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge because Vital article is not just a WikiProject, it's a classification that helps with prioritizing editor's efforts. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, instead merge to WPBannerShell. Same as Martin, I don't like this. The talk header is already cluttered, and no one will notice the VA icon, it'll be as good as gone. Good interface design should also respect semantic groupings, i.e. what is essentially a Wikipedia-wide importance classification doesn't belong in a banner about sourcing and user conduct. The VA classification is useful; Philosophy might not be our most-viewed page, but it's a damn important one. The VA classification should be displayed in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, where we just moved article class assessments; as, again, it's a Wikipedia-wide importance assessment of sorts. That addresses the space concerns, but doesn't make it indiscernible. DFlhb (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @DFlhb, for the one piece of info that matters, the fact that an article has been listed as VA at a given level, I think this proposal actually makes it a bit more noticeable. In user interface design, placing something farther down the page and hiding it behind a click (in this case uncollapsing the shell) are both actions that reduce how much it's seen easily by 90%. The only people who tend to pay attention to a particular project banner on a talk page are those involved in that particular project, but since (as you put it) the VA designation is Wikipedia-wide, not just project-wide, it's better to have it where it'll be noticed not just by VA participants. (Courtesy pinging @Aszx5000 as this also speaks to your comment.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note I'm not proposing we convert to WPBannerMeta and place a VA banner inside the shell (I changed my mind since February). I'm saying we should merge it, in the same way you do here, with {{WikiProject banner shell}} itself, displayed alongside with This article is rated NA-class on Wikipedia's... DFlhb (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thanks for clarifying. I think that would an okay enough outcome. There isn't really an available spot to put "VA-3" in the shell header, so a merge to there might take the form of e.g. This level-3 vital article is rated NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. That has the downside of completely removing the VA topic classification, though, and it would require we add the banner shell to all vital articles, which would be a little awkward for e.g. those with only two traditional projects. Given that, I think the talk header is the better destination. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In order to implement project-independent quality ratings it will be necessary to add WPBS to all talk pages anyway. You can even use WPBS without any banners to give a quality rating. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to lose the visual display of VA topic classification; its only purpose is to keep Wikipedia:Vital articles organised, but it's not valuable/meaningful info on article talk pages or anywhere else — DFlhb (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I like the idea of the proposal, so I won't outright oppose, but I think it should feature somewhere more prominently instead of being tucked away. Curbon7 (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere else. I support a merge, but this is not a good target. {{WikiProject Vital Articles}} or {{WikiProject banner shell}} would be netter targets. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 20:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    {{WikiProject Vital Articles}}, despite its seemingly similar appearance, is very different from {{Vital article}}. It's intended to be used at the top of back-end talk pages relating to the vital articles project, e.g. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles, rather than on vital articles themselves. Merging to there would blur those two groups, creating all sorts of technical headaches, and at the end of it we'd still have a banner with all the bloat problems mentioned in the nomination.
    Re {{WikiProject banner shell}}, see my reply to DFlhb above.
    Also, a quick process note: TfD is a discussion venue that can entertain multiple possibilities beyond just those put forth in the nomination. As such, factoring your !vote as "Merge to X" rather than "Oppose" may make it easier for a closer to see that there is clear desire for a merge to somewhere, even if we're still trying to figure out exactly where. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sdkb:
  • Merge. I agree with the proposal, which is really a UX improvement. Some have argued above that not all vital articles have a talk header. That is a non-problem. The merge process, if this proposal succeeds, will involve adding the talk header to the talk pages of vital articles that miss it. I don't see any reason why some vital articles should not have a talk page header. MarioGom (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still the wrong target for a merge. Discussions at WT:Talk page layout for the past year have been pretty unanimous that Vital articles should be treated like any other Wikiprojects. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a valid opinion, but I think it is a valid target, and my !vote still stands. MarioGom (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I also agree that it would likely be better as part of the BannerShell than the Talk page header. However, I think it should retain a lot of the existing language rather than be simplified to a mere alphanumeric code in the corner. If telling someone the article should be improved as a vital article has resulted in even a few improvements it otherwise wouldn't have, it's worth having it there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge either to Talker header or Bannershell. I don't think it needs to be anything more than a compact note as suggested by the nomination. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose clearly should not merge with the talk header, which is not a template for assessing topics. {{WPBS}} the WikiProject bannershell should be the target for any merger, since it is currently gaining functionality for assessing articles. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, merge into WPBannerShell instead The talk header is a really bizarre place to put assessment information, and it would be far more logical to put all the assessment information into one template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowler the Carmine (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose, it definitely shouldn't be merged with the talk header, as it isn't a place to assess articles; instead, Bannershell would be a far better place to put it. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Talk header is clearly not the place Vital articles should be merged into, as it is meant to only convey general instructions to talk page viewers and providing them links to old archives. It is not for assessments, which is what Vital articles template is meant to do. If anything, it may be converted to use {{WPBannerMeta}} and then be put inside of WPBS like any other WikiProject banners on talkpage (VIT template is to be considered equivalent to WikiProject templates, per the discussion pointed to above) or it be merged into {{WPBS}} (which recently got the ability to have quality assessments added to it, following a unanimously supported RfC at VPPR, adding VIT assessments alongside shouldn't be difficult). —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 11:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The two templates serve different purposes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: why are the quality assessments and categories not deemed useful to the vital articles project? It would seem to me that categories like Category:Wikipedia Start-Class level-3 vital articles would be relevant and useful in tracking the quality of our most important articles. The proposals to merge the template would presumably lose this information. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, if you look at the code in the sandbox code, the categorization functionality remains; it just isn't displayed. Over time, I anticipate that it'll be retired in favor of inheriting the project independent quality assessments, but for now I wanted to avoid any loss of functionality. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 13:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if we're keeping quality assessments then I would say a WPBM banner is the best fit. That's what they're designed for — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we need it to be WPBM for these categories? Can't WPBS do it? VA uses the standard assessment criteria, so they're never differ from article class — DFlhb (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a merge into the WPBannerShell or Talk header. I don't currently have a preference for which. I would however suggest a substantially larger the icon, such as the GA icon in Template:Article history, at least for levels 1-3. CMD (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any change. I think there's a vocal minority (maybe not in this discussion, but on wiki in general) that objects to mass adding {{Talk header}} to pages, so some pages probably don't have this template, and people may be upset if it is mass added. I'm also not sure it's necessary to complicate the code for {{WikiProject banner shell}} when we can just move the {{Vital article}} banner down into the banner shell unchanged and achieve the same goal of reducing the prominence of the {{Vital article}} banner. It sounds like WP:TALKORDER was recently changed to encourage moving {{Vital article}} down into the banner shell unchanged (Diff), so if that edit stands and is not reverted, our work may already be done here, without needing to merge any templates. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently {{vital article}} does not work well inside the banner shell, but work to fix that will be fairly straightforward — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as proposed, second choice to merge somewhere else (assessment banner?), please don't keep the status quo. The "assessment" doesn't really matter and per other links, we're moving away from project-specific assessments anyway. So why merge there? It's better than nothing I guess, but it's not like we ever expect the VA assessment to be B while the Other Project assessment is Start. Further, VA or not just doesn't need that much space. For the complaints that what a VA3 in the corner means is too opaque, that can be fixed by expanding the current suggestion from "VA3" to spell out "Vital Article Level 3" in the upper right corner, but there is really no need for any more duplicative text. Someone curious about what "Vital Article" means can just click the link. SnowFire (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If anything, it should be merged with the Article milestones or WikiProjects banner; also, the proposed design is quite small to me, making the vital article symbol barely noticable. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - but like others, the VA logo certainly needs to be more prominent. Frzzl (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Merge; I think that there can be a better solution, but the proposed one works out just fine. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Given that this template is used a lot on user talk pages, I think merging to the target makes no sense. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Illusion Flame How is this template used a lot on user talk pages? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See my user talk page for example. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think @Illusion Flame is saying that the talk header is used on a lot of user talk pages. Merging the vital article template to it would have no effect on user talk pages as it simply wouldn't be displayed there (or on non-vital articles), just as the article policies in talk header also aren't displayed when it's used on user talk pages. So it's not a cogent argument. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I still would like to have the talk page header on my talk page, and doing this would prevent it, so I oppose. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Illusion Flame Merging vital article as a parameter into the talk page header would not have any effect on pages without the parameter, i.e. it would not prevent that. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I still oppose a merge because WikiProject banner shell is a better target. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 21:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Place in WPBannerShell This is the current consensus, and gives appropriate weight to the "Vital article" importance listing. The proposed idea of merging with the talkheader would give a reader the mistaken assumption that the importance listing is somehow "official" rather than the opinion of random Wikipedia users. When placed in WPBannerShell the importance listing can be viewed in context alongside the opinions of other projects, and a more informed picture emerges. For example, with regard to Mansa Musa, a reader would be able to see that as regards African topics, Mansa Musa is regarded as of top importance, though of lessor importance globally. SilkTork (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge, leave Vital article template in WikiProject banner shell where current consensus has it. SilkTork (just above) has laid out the reasoning I agree with. The Vital article project is no more than the opinions of a group of editors who pay attention to that project, just like any other WikiProject. Consensus was reached recently that talk page clutter can be reduced by placing it within the WikiProject banner shell. Elevating it to some unique and random place that no one will recognize will just be confusing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia, I believe the de facto norm is that the VA banner should be outside the project banner shell (whether that is ideal or not). If there was a conversation that clarified it should be in the banner shell like any other project (which I don't think there was), it was certainly not widely implemented as hundreds of talk pages still keep the VA banner outside the shell. Aza24 (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aza24 see WP:TPL and the long discussion that preceded the implementation there of adding Vital to the Wikiproject banner shell. The hundreds of cluttered talk pages still need cleanup to add the Vital project to the banner shell. It probably hasn't been done globally yet because we had the simultaneous adoption of the new global assessment to the sshell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, here's a copy of my example from that discussion of just how "Vital" the Vital Project is:
    That's it; this has even less significance than one-person reviewer processes-- these designations can be added by anyone and are subject to no independent scrutiny. William Utermohlen is still listed as a vital article.
    Vital should be either in the WikiProject Banner Shell, or in the regular Banner holder, and they do not warrant any other ranking on talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I first raised this in July 22, then again in February 2023, and here we are in May, and Utermohlen is still "Vital". Why are these tags cluttering talk, who even monitors these tags, and whatever on Earth makes Utermohlen vital? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But in case I misunderstand: Get the Vital template out of the talk header, as proposed here, and keep it inside the WikiProject banner shell like every other WikiProject, which is exactly what Vital is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per SandyGeorgia. I came here expecting to support, but the arguments they raised are good ones, and if it can now be placed within the WikiProject banner shell then that will address banner bloat. BilledMammal (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as written, although I support the goal, esp. re: banner blindness. I certainly don’t think the particulars need to be made so small as to reduce them to three characters and an icon though. Move to WikiProject banner shell seems reasonable, and we can certainly cut If you can improve it, please do., as well as This article has been rated as GA-Class by WikiProject Vital Articles., given the new global ratings, right? So the single sentence—written out as words, and with clear links—seems very reasonable to me. — HTGS (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the be bold sentence should go. Likewise, the WP rating belongs to a WP template. I'm ambivalent about whether the indication that something is a vital article should take up an entire vertical line of screen space or if it should share the space with something else. --Joy (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as an improvement on the status quo and a step forwards on de-cluttering talk page banners. I would prefer a merge to {{WikiProject Banner Shell}}, as I'd expect to see vitality listed alongside class and importance, and {{Talk header}} has no other assessment-related details (and frankly I'd be happy to see it deleted or made much more minimal). Nonetheless, I fundamentally agree that an icon/abbreviation/tooltip is enough space for Vital status to take up. — Bilorv (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per SandyGeorgia. The banner shell idea has merit and should be discussed further. Putting a couple letters and a number in the upper right corner of the talkheader is confusing clutter. Jusdafax (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge So that user talk pages are being NA-rated by the importance scale. 172.56.217.134 (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User talk page have nothing to do with this merge proposal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's not really for the talk page header, because it's used on user talk pages as well, and it's just un-necessary. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 20:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not a great idea to merge it to the talk page header, because the vital article template is important and should be seen immediately when looking at a talk page. Additionally, the talk page header is used on user talk pages and non-vital article talk pages as well. The person who loves reading (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Merge instead to {{WikiProject Vital Articles}}, per Headbomb.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This wouldn't achieve the goal of reducing the amount of talk page banners — DFlhb (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it might to some degree because at least template will collapse properly inside the banner shell — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose with reference to SilkTork. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to WPBannerShell As much as vital articles isn't technically a WikiProject, for all intents and purposes it fills that niche. Even if there isn't consensus to merge into WPBannerShell, this should not be a standalone template anymore, because it greatly contributes to talk page bloat, and I thank sdkb for addressing that issue. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the proposed target, where it's tucked away in fairly small font in the top right of the talk header banner, reduces visibility too much – at least personally, I would barely ever see it. I'm not opposing because I don't know if there's a better solution, but I don't like how hidden and pushed to the side it is. The merge into WPBS seems better, as per discussion under DFlhb's !vote, and I think I'll give merging to WPBS a slight support. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to WPBannerShell I also agree that the current proposal makes the vital article rating effectively useless due to it's tiny size relative to the rest of the talk header template. Having it be integrated into BannerShell in my mind would still allow it to be displayed as prominently as Wikiprojects and still help with the issue of clutter. - nathanielcwm (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as others have noted WPBannerShell might be a more appropriate target to merge into, but in general I see value in having Vital Article status as a standalone, uncollapsed flag on talk pages. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bannershell, else to Talk header. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a very useful template for editors who are working to build and maintain the Vital Article lists, and it needs to stand on its own, not be merged into another template to maintain its utility. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Every project thinks its banner is the most important :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but wrong location. You should merge it somewhere else that is related to it. ThatRandomEditor101 (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge elsewhere. Perhaps into its own WikiProject which would be listed first within the shell. Some articles can belong to multiple taskforces which can only be had by repeating the existing clutter with different parameters. Perhaps into WPBanerShell - just like class is usually the same across all WikiProjects (i.e., the view from the encylcopedia), so too is vitality and level. It's just that there can be multiple vital areas and levels covered by a single article. Though I guess one could add area-level parameters as needed. Perhaps a vital-level parameter can be added to existing WikiProjects and/or taskforces that cover off the same area instead? (see {{WikiProject Mathematics}} and {{WP1.0}}. Talk header is too bulky for my tastes and I only expect it for contentious articles. Dpleibovitz (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - the proposed solution looks very clean to me and will reduce clutter considerably; however, it might be worth increasing the size of the link to make it a bit more prominent? I've also seen a few people argue that this template should not be merged as it is apparently used on user talk pages, but I fail to see why - the VA template is article only and the parameter will only be used on article talk pages, meaning it won't be visible on user talk pages that use Talk header. Remagoxer (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Banner blindness is a serious issue. Frostly (talk) 04:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, replace with a standard WikiProject template within the bannershell, with the usual rating parameter and an extra one for level. NB It may be that this is what some people mean by "merge to bannershell", I don't know. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge but I agree that the banner shell is the better target. – Joe (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed to talk header merger ( talk header not the place to promote this one Wiki project with limited credible criteria). Support moving to banner shell.Moxy-  02:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed, this is the wrong destination, and would require addition of the Talk header template at many pages that don’t currently have and do not need them. Merge to WPBS instead. Mathglot (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Mathglot's point about the number of pages that don't have a talk page I think is dismissed too quickly in the nomination, especially without a PetScan (or similar) count. PetScan seems to choke when trying to look for all 61,110 articles that should have a {{Vital article}} template, but looking at subsets, it's far from evident that vital articles without a talk page header are "edge cases". For example, of the 2,123 vital articles that use {{Infobox officeholder}}, 1,059 don't have a talk header and 275 don't have a banner shell/banner holder; of the 265 with {{Infobox language}}, 147 don't have a talk header and 65 don't have a banner shell/holder; of the 11 with {{Infobox island}}, eight don't have a talk page header and three don't have a banner shell/holder. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tcr25 I don’t think about half equals edge cases. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aaron Liu, I agree. The nomination says that only in "edge cases" will vital articles not have a talk header. My point was that that seems to not be the case (and a good percentage may also be without a banner shell template). @Mathglot had a different way to search below and it looks like half or more than half of vital articles do not use talk header templates. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merge per points made above. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but as many !votes have pointed out, {{WPBS}} would be the more intuitive target in my opinion. Then again, articles with a VA assessment are almost certainly going to have a {{Talk header}} too, so if there is no consensus to merge with WPBS, I would still support a merge with the talk header in favor of no change at all. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 17:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Except for these 31,000 articles (redirects not accounted for). Mathglot (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per well-reasoned nom. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as wrong merge target. Happy to merge to something that's actually relevant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, merge with WikiProject banner shell - would probably look better that way. Ⲕրⲁիօրետ (tɒk) 16:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaron Liu (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2023 (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:Chinese nationalism

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 01:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there is a need for the template, the only two other nationalist templates I've found so far are {{Baloch nationalism}} and {{white nationalism}}, both of which are not templates about one specific country. I admit that perhaps this topic does have its cultural specificity, but the current edition simply includes too little. If it is indeed considered valuable to keep, I would also like someone to improve this template as much as possible. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 15:38, 17 May 2023 (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:South Africa policy

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 04:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with no main article and only three links in the body, all of which are redirects. One of the redirects goes to an article that does not mention the nominal topic (monetary policy). Not useful for navigation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2023 (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:CF/FAC/FindArchive

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not used for more than 10 years Q𝟤𝟪 00:52, 17 May 2023 (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:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Class sandbox/class

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At present, the target is not in use Q𝟤𝟪 00:51, 17 May 2023 (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/2023_May_17&oldid=1157277624"