Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 February 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 6 February 8 >

February 7[edit]

Template:Gmina Olszanka[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 redirect to Template:Gmina Olszanka, Opole Voivodeship. Primefac (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This looks like a copy of Template:Gmina Olszanka, Opole Voivodeship with some of the links in Polish. It's in Category:Lower Silesian Voivodeship gmina templates but there appears to be no Gmina Olszanka in Lower Silesian Voivodeship. Peter James (talk) 23:51, 7 February 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:This a new user[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 userfy. Primefac (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some part of this looks as a template but there is users's picture. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete New editor probably thought he was setting up a user page. Drdpw (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to users area. KylieTastic (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy Probably just a new editor trying to make a userpage. If it were older, I'd say delete, but given how new it is, userfy. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 8 February 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:Executive Order 13769[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. It Is Me Here (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This navbox is essentially used as a table of contents for two articles Reactions to Executive Order 13769 and Lawsuits against the immigration policy of Donald Trump. The purpose of navboxes is to find related articles, makes no sense to duplicate a TOC. — JFG talk 15:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following removal of the TOC aspect and addition of some newly-emerging articles, this navbox has now a reason to live; I hereby withdraw the nomination for deletion. — JFG talk 08:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is misleading because it leads readers to believe that there are 20 different articles. It is also redundant because we have a category for the mere four articles in the box. It is called Category:Executive Order 13769. epicgenius (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or replace with something else. I find it useful to see the articles all together. Comfr (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with the template is where duplicates a TOC. I agree, that it makes no sense to duplicate a TOC. But we still need a template to tie related articles together. As soon as I started reading the article, I immediately looked for a template. Using categories requires first going to a new page. The template should be improved, not deleted. Comfr (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I eliminated the duplication of TOCs. What do the other editors think? Comfr (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominating justification is no longer true, there is no requirement that all navbox entries be standalone articles, and the navbox scheme provides an organizational structure that the category does not. —swpbT 14:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe Keep It's now upto 3 articles with State of Wa vs Trump getting it's own article CatapultTalks (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems useful enough; it gives readers a standard way to navigate through the topic. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 19:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the topic has spawned a half dozen articles, which benefit from a navigation aid, in the space of a week and source material for even greater depth of coverage exists. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as amended during the last week. — JFG talk 08:38, 14 February 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:Macron[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. I've done a histmerge and left the result at {{macron}}. Primefac (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing deletion of unused "Macron" template which seems to be an out-of-date version of the used template Template:Letters with macron DRMcCreedy (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candidate for T3. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge its history into Template:Letters with macron, which apears to have started out as a copy. – Uanfala (talk) 19:53, 9 February 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:US Presidential Administrations[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. This discussion has issues on multiple fronts. What started out as a question of if these two templates should be merged quickly turned into a debate about how the merged templates should look. At one point there were more than five options being proposed, with zero consensus as to which was the preference, and many of the initial contributors who opposed the merger did not respond to the "new and improved" merge options. When it was a question of "if" there was no consensus, and there was no consensus on how.

I have two options for a speedy renomination:

  1. Re-nominate, have a discussion ONLY about if the templates should be merged. Do not debate what the final template will look like.
  2. Create a "final product" at Draft:US Presidents navbox (discuss as necessary at the draft talk how to actually do it). Once this final version is completed, the templates can be re-nominated. The discussion will then be "if we merge, this is what it will look like; savvy?"

In summary, there is no consensus, but also NPASR. Primefac (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:US Presidential Administrations with Template:US Presidents.
Propose a merge of both navigational boxes; please see the proposed draft. --Nevé–selbert 09:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep separate The US Presidential Administrations template was created (by me) after a discussion (here @ Template talk:US Presidents) on whether links to the various "Presidency of ..." articles should remain included or removed from the US Presidents template. An editor objected to them, stating that they made the "template too cluttered". Another editor noted that the presidency articles didn't belong as "the template is chronological navbox for Presidents [main articles] alone". The reasons for splitting the administration articles from the main president bio articles remain unchanged. One template navigates between presidential administration articles and the other between main president bio articles. Merging the two creates an unnecessarily cumbersome and cluttered template that’s more difficult to navigate. An additional reason for maintaining the status quo, developing smaller templates on sub-topics is encouraged, see WP:Navigation template. The reasons for splitting the administration articles from the main president bio articles remain unchanged. One template navigates between presidential administration articles and the other between main president bio articles. Merging the two creates an unnecessarily cumbersome and cluttered template that’s more difficult to navigate. On the other hand, Nevé–selbert’s implied reason for proposing this merge, "I have a redesign idea", is unconvincing. Drdpw (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have made a rather poor case in keeping the boxes separate, other than merely stating a purely mechanical backlash against changing the status quo propped up by some prior consensus; see WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. You say that a couple editors objected to keeping the presidency articles in the same box, but that is an extremely misleading assertion. That was when the navigational box had looked like this without the organisation of presidents and administrations that the draft above ably demonstrates. Merging the two creates an unnecessarily cumbersome and cluttered template that’s more difficult to navigate That hardly makes sense. The presidents are in one group and their administrations are in another, similar to how {{Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom}} is organised. You bring up WP:NAV, I would in turn bring up WP:EXISTING. Now, as of this writing, over a dozen U.S. presidents do not have a separate article documenting their presidency, but yet the way {{US Presidential Administrations}} appears you would think that every president had a presidency article. So I've concocted a new draft here, removing the redirects and adding the timelines you added to the administrations template in the last 24hrs. Nevé–selbert’s implied reason for proposing this merge, "I have a redesign idea", is unconvincing. That is not my implied reason at all, that is nonsense. I merely made a potential blueprint for this merge as a kind of artist's impression, so that uninvolved users at this juncture would get an idea of what the proposed merge may look like when all is said and done.--Nevé–selbert 12:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're not proposing something to similar to how tl|Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom is organized. That template contains links to the individuals primary bio article only. There is, as you know, a separate template for premierships {{United Kingdom premierships}}. Why haven't you merged those two templates? Doing so would be similar to what you are proposing here. Also, your "blueprint" for merger is not a reason to merge the two. You've still not given a reason why these two templates should be merged. Drdpw (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't requested a merge of those two templates, you are correct. Unlike America, which has been the United States of America since 1776, the UK has only been the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland since 1922; therefore American presidents would only need to be grouped once, with their presidencies grouped below (hence less clutter than what would be for the Prime Ministers). There are also only seven premiership articles of British Prime Ministers, in contrast to the dozens created for American presidents. I rested my case for restructuring at Template talk:US Presidential Administrations (the discussion you moved from Template talk:US Presidents) months ago, I see no reason to repeat the exact same arguments. But, I must repeat, what is really the point in having two separate navboxes looking pretty much the same (and mostly serving the same purpose), when you can easily fit them both together in a single navbox? (The former that just so happens to be widely accessible for most interested in American presidential politics.)--Nevé–selbert 17:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Up until 1/29, when you abruptly closed the discussion of your proposed design change for the administration template and proposed this Tfd, you seemingly had no problem with there being 2 separate templates; why the sudden shift? Drdpw (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are a couple of reasons. First off, as time went on I became dissatisfied with separating presidents via era (e.g. the last group "Post–Cold War" seemed potentially misleading given how many believe another one is yet brewing regardless of the love affair between Trump and Putin) and I was equally discontented with separating presidents via century. Secondly, since I'm also tracking another Rfc, I felt on further reflection that it was better for me to concentrate on one RfC at a time. And for what it's worth, I felt further disillusioned because of the reverts you made shortly before my closing of the discussion.--Nevé–selbert 16:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge – Makes it easier to access all the relevant information about presidencies. The proposed draft layout is clear and not overly long. — JFG talk 12:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate as I was the fellow who pushed for the separation in the first place. GoodDay (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate I feel separation is more appropriate. Ethanbas (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, I guess no policy-rooted argument from you again, then?--Nevé–selbert 17:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Comment (just realized that I already !voted above) – The purpose of navboxes is to help readers find related articles. It is more logical to allow navigation to each president's article and their administration, rather than artificially group presidents on one side and administrations on the other. If a compact format can be devised (and Neve-selbert's proposal looks pretty good to me), I see no reason for a split. — JFG talk 15:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, this looks like a good merge, except for losing the years of the presidencies. The proposed template, as a map to the subject, offers a fuller scope of Wikipedia's interrelated pages. Randy Kryn 03:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: Years now included. Thanks for the heads-up .--Nevé–selbert 16:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added recent additions to the Administrations template; hope you don't mind. Cartoon Boy (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted, on second thought, better to let you handle the edits... but the Truman timeline needs to be added, as well as the articles for the Obama presidency by year; look at the Administrations template as it currently stands. Cartoon Boy (talk) 1:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your interest, Cartoon Boy, and I hope you will be able to support this merge. I have updated the navbox to include the new articles Presidency of John Tyler, Timeline of the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Timeline of the presidency of Harry S. Truman. With regards to the Obama presidency timeline, I struggle to really see the point in including each article for each year of the Obama presidency. Readers can easily click on the WP:SIA and find their way through.--Nevé–selbert 18:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Neve-selbert that individual years are overkill. — JFG talk 21:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The years in 'administrations' are enough, the 'Timeline' section probably should revert back to the names and drop the years per repetition. Randy Kryn 22:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC
Comment I agree that listing the president's names for each president's timeline would be the best solution. I also oppose including individual years. Orser67 (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I too think that the prototype looks better with names only in the TL section & also fail to see the point of including each yearly Obama TL in the template - that's why the umbrella O-TL page exists. My only suggestion is that initials be restored to the last names (no "Bush I/Bush II", "Roosevelt I/Roosevelt II", etc.) in the admin area. Drdpw (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I like the simplicity and elegance of the current US President template. But I've been working on the presidency articles, and I'd like them to be as visible as possible in hopes that other editors will read and work on them. As Randy Kryn noted, combining the two templates will allow for more visibility of what Wikipedia has to offer. Orser67 (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate These were originally combined and were separated for a reason. I don't think this navbox is particularly necessary to begin with, as not all Presidents have an article dedicated to their presidencies at this time. Furthermore, combining these boxes will cause the single, new box to be far more cluttered, complicated, and distract from the purpose of providing a simple, effective navigation tool.   Spartan7W §   01:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose is to provide a map to the subject, and the revised template does that very well. Cluttered or complicated don't factor in, the template is very uncomplicated and far from cluttered or distracting. Having two or more templates covering the subject seems counterproductive to a full vision of the subject in one place. Randy Kryn 17:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: I have made another revision of the proposed draft here, incorporating the timelines into the Administrations column.--Nevé–selbert 16:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Saw you took out the entire timeline section, which I thought one of the good points of the template. Anyway, first things first, 'saving' the template from deletion and then tweak it to add all pertinent sections (Lincoln now has an 'Outline', I don't know if any other presidents do but at some point all of them will, so 'Outline' is another section for consideration). The timelines seem important for a full template. And as you've put this one together very well an overall 'thank you' for doing such a good job in focusing on the subject. Randy Kryn 17:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The timelines are now linked via years served, Randy Kryn. That is to say, (2009–17) links to Timeline of the presidency of Barack Obama, to avoid clutter. Not sure about whether to add Outline of Abraham Lincoln, that may need further discussion. Thank-you for the feedback.--Nevé–selbert 17:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just took a look at your latest revision, and noted that while the section title "Administrations" links to Category:United States presidential administrations, the section title "Presidents" links to the President of the United States article. Given the the one linkage, I anticipated that the Presidents link would be to Category:Presidents of the United States, and that the President of the United States article would be linked to at the top. As that's the primary article unifying all the articles in the navbox together (not the List of article), I think it belongs there. Drdpw (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Rectified.--Nevé–selbert 21:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice, job, that looks really good. Orser67 (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge of this version. I must admit I was more than a little apprehensive when this was first proposed, but I truly now think this is the way to go; and honestly would like to get this done as soon as possible. Do have an inquiry, though. This would still all be under Template: US Presidents? -- Cartoon Boy (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:381E:5630:356A:B32:7680:BC15 (talk) [reply]
I personally think Template:US Presidencies would be best, as the new title.--Nevé–selbert 21:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I assume all articles with the old template link at the bottom would still work? -- Cartoon Boy (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, they'll be redirected to the new title.--Nevé–selbert 17:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was warming to the idea of combining the two templates, but you've given me pause. While "US Presidencies" could work as an alternate name for current Presidential Administrations template, it doesn't work for this proposed template. This new one would, after all, be a combination of two distinct groupings of articles: Presidents of the United States, that helps readers navigate between main biographical articles about the presidents, and, U.S. Presidential Administrations, which helps readers navigate between presidential administration articles. No, if merged, the new name would need to clearly reflect this. In thinking about this however, I'm still left wondering, what's the point of creating a single complex navbox when each grouping of articles currently has its own clear, concise, user-friendly and fully-functional navbox? Drdpw (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of renaming was merely just that, an idea. If {{US Presidencies}} renders such a problem, I'm fine with sticking with {{US Presidents}}.--Nevé–selbert 20:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful. Fully approved for release! — JFG talk 09:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was much better the other way, or some way. This one has far too much white space which unnecessary enlarges the template, the administration links are not clearly defined or mentioned, and please realize that the timelines will be removed by one of the deletionist editors who don't like 'categories' in templates (somehow that exclusionist 'rule' passed). Here's an example of something closer to fully marked information. Randy Kryn 13:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Orser67 (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed compromise is excellent solution & should be implemented. Wish I had thought of it. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't, unless it is made clear that administrations are included and the timelines are also included (the category link will be removed by someone). What we have now are names and years, no indication that 'administration' pages are linked. Randy Kryn 15:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? Ham II (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's an interesting one! I think I like it. Ethanbas (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really like the current version Nevé has in their sandbox: [1]. Ethanbas (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the compromise I accept isn't implemented? then we should leave'em all in 3 separate Templates. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I like Draft F the most. Drafts, A, D, and E are all fine with me. Don't like Drafts B or C. I don't like Draft G but I think I'd like it better if not for the caps; I'd prefer this. Also, we should add the "for timeline" template to the tops of all the presidency articles, imo. Orser67 (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • G or G without small caps; otherwise F. Ham II (talk) 08:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft E is by far the most elegant. It makes great usage of space, it provides visual consistency, it adapts well to every screen width, and it displays dates cleanly next to each president, where the link to their presidency is natural (and will be shown in bold on the relevant articles). To answer Randy Kryn's concern about the timelines link, I think we could add a short "Timelines" section with just the names of presidents who have one. Detailed day-by-day timelines are only available for a few recent presidencies, so it wouldn't clutter the navbox at all. Here's a draft, let's call it E+: Draft:US Presidents navbox. Only main timeline articles should be shown, not yearly ones. Or we could keep a separate timelines navbox, while the presidents and presidencies navboxes are begging to be merged. — JFG talk 09:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why a separate timelines navbox? May as well keep the status quo then, with administration articles and admistration timelines together, and separate from the person articles. Drdpw (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I'm preferring E+, but would suggest a few modifications: dates styled 1789–1797 rather than 1789–97 per MOS:DATERANGE, and the Presidencies heading changed to Presidents (with administrations) or similar, to address Randy Kryn's concern above that there's "no indication that 'administration' pages are linked". Ham II (talk) 11:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Applied full dates in ranges now. I tried the longer row header but it looks awkward. Keeping just "Presidencies". Note that MOS:DATERANGE explicitly allows the "1929–33" format in lists and navboxes; I'm neutral about which looks best. — JFG talk 16:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
·The title heading "Presidencies" doesn't cover/reflect the content of the proposed navbox, which is articles about 'Presidents of the United States and their Administrations. If this merge comes to pass the title of the combined navbox should reflect the fact that two separate (stand-alone) navboxes have been merged into one. Drdpw (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate. None of the drafted merge options adequately satisfy any need to merge the two templates. All of the drafts fall short with either too many redundancies or not enough simplicity of fact finding for our readers. These should be left alone as is to continue to do the fine job for which they were designed.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  03:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, three weeks of trying to fix something that wasn't broke (actually two templates that were and are working fine) has resulted in 7+ unnecessarily cumbersome and cluttered template proposals. Drdpw (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't look like progress: hard to read, and repetitive. IMHO we should first decide whether templates should be merged in principle, and only then discuss the style. People here have been confused and are changing their minds based on the various designs floated, whereas we should decide about the merge in principle first. — JFG talk 08:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you, Nevé–selbert for all your work on this (and for the Wikiprayer on your user page). I know you only have improvement on your mind. Unfortunately, I must agree with JFG on all counts. Some of the date ranges are missing – even if there are no "presidency" articles for them the date ranges should be there, which might make this draft significantly larger and even harder to read. Frankly, I see no need at all for the date ranges and the USPA template should look as follows: {{US Presidential Administrations/sandbox}}. Keeping our readers in mind, I ask that we close this discussion and keep these two templates separate just as they are {perhaps sans the date ranges). They will both grow larger over time.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Best we go with separate templates. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the final draft linked with modification (the numbers of the presidential terms aren't needed in the second section per repetitive). This includes all the major pages in a clearly marked fashion. The inclusion of all relevant pages on one template seems the best way to go on this, although Paine Ellsworth's plan is also good. But the final draft covers everything except outlines, nice work. Nice work by everyone, actually. Randy Kryn 15:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last ditch effort – Before this thread closes with no consensus, please take a look at the latest column-formatted Draft:US Presidents navbox, which evolved from Draft E and took into account further suggestions by Ham II and Drdpw. — JFG talk 18:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty good. Could probably lose the white space in the 'Timeline' section by just listing the names. But hopefully, with so many people interested, this shouldn't close as "no concensus", although with deletions and merges and such what concerns me is somebutnotall closers close like five a minute, they don't have time to read the discussion and form a mental image of what people have planned or what they see as viable compromises, I don't even know how they can still be allowed to close. That's one reason I try to keep out of deletion or template-deletion discussions, although every day they come fast and furious. The times when I do look there are always two or more good pages or templates up for deletion each day. As I've said before, these are the saddest and probably some of the most poorly run parts of Wikipedia. Anyway, nice work on that new candidate, and hopefully a closer will allow the merge and then suggest that those who are interested work out the details. Randy Kryn 18:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why should a closer allow the merge? While, a consensus is emerging as to the layout of a combined template, there is not (yet) a consensus for the merger. I myself have no objections to JFG's "last ditch effort". Drdpw (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Late in the game a good template has emerged and is being collaborated on so, if a closer actually reads all of this (some of them close three a minute) and makes a good mental map of the discussion, the best-of-both-worlds is evolving and hopefully will be allowed to go forward. Randy Kryn 21:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acceptable, as is Neve's initial compromise. Kinda getting exhausted by these multiple proposals. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supporting this proposal in its present format, and it would be even better if the timelines were in a dotted list as Randy Kryn suggests. Ham II (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I also added the "first 100 days" articles, not the individual years which are only there for Obama and look overkill. — JFG talk 06:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the second column not even with the first and third columns? Orser67 (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Orser67: This is due to the column display algorithm, trying to balance 45 entries into 2, 3 or 4 columns. Try widening or narrowing your window: the number of columns will change, and so will the balancing act. — JFG talk 20:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • JFG, While my first choice is to keep the two clear, concise & user-friendly navboxes separate. That said, your draft merge is clear, concise & user-friendly as well. I have been bold and have made 3 titling changes to the draft (if they are objectionable, undo them): top title - Presidents of the United States and their administrations → Presidents of the United States and Presidential Administrations; group1 title - Presidencies → Presidents (Administrations); group2 title - Timelines → Administration timelines. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Drdpw: Your changes are positive; I tweaked the titles a bit further; hope this meets your agreement. — JFG talk 20:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Last ditch" poll for merge into Draft:US Presidents navbox

@Neve-selbert, Drdpw, JFG, GoodDay, Ethanbas, Randy Kryn, Orser67, Spartan7W, Cartoon Boy, and Ham II: Please voice your support or opposition for a merge into Draft:US Presidents navbox, as amended with latest remarks taken into account. — JFG talk 06:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping Paine Ellsworth for the poll. — JFG talk 21:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. JFG
  2. Orser67, assuming the second column is fixed
  3. Randy Kryn, although 'administrations' should be in section head so more people know to click on the dates
  4. Ham II. This version has a neat way of addressing the concern voiced immediately above. I do think that despite the headaches the best possible version has slowly been emerging from this discussion.

Oppose

  1. Ellsworth: please keep templates separate. Merge drafts are simply too busy and hard for our readers to navigate.

Neutral

  1. Ethanbas. I don't have an opinion either way. I think separate is fine, and merging is also fine.
  2. Neve-selbert, for now. See my thoughts below.
  3. GoodDay, first choice 'still' separate Templates
  4. Drdpw, first choice is separate templates. Both meet the standards for stand-alone navagitional boxes; they are both well designed and are useful tools.

Alternative "last ditch" draft

@Drdpw, GoodDay, Ethanbas, Randy Kryn, Orser67, Spartan7W, Cartoon Boy, Ham II, and JFG: Sorry to bother you all again, but the following is the last draft I am prepared to propose (failing much support for it from you guys, I am totally willing to support JFG's draft above). The new draft is at Special:Permalink/768050555. Thanks for all your patience, it really is appreciated.--Nevé–selbert 13:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like this one more if the numbers and years were lost in the last two sections (redundant). Nice work, hopefully some type of merge will emerge. Randy Kryn 14:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your new Alternative "last ditch" draft is still cluttered and cumbersome. I know you've put a lot of energy & thought into this, but the names and numbers (even with the years removed, as suggested by Randy Kryn) all run together way too much, thus limiting its navigation value. Drdpw (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first choice is 'still' to use separate Templates. I'll leave the rest of you to decide what to go with. Too many proposals. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep these templates separate for reasons previously stated.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  07:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Upon further reflection, I feel inclined to agree with Paine Ellsworth. This discussion has become far too dysfunctional for anyone to assess a consensus of any kind, so it is with a heavy heart that I have requested closure of this discussion as no consensus, here. Thanks for the support and the interest everyone here has shown.--Nevé–selbert 15:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Neve-selbert: With all due respect to your work, it seems to me that it's not proper for a participant in the discussion, even the OP, to instruct a closer about the consensus reached or lack thereof. Either you take responsibility to perform an involved {{nac}}, or you request an uninvolved closer to do the job with no prejudice as to their decision. — JFG talk 23:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for any perceived indecorum, JFG. Per WP:CLOSE#Closure procedure, it would have been improper of me to have closed thE discussion myself.--Nevé–selbert 16:15, 3 March 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:Star Trek Q stories[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. Primefac (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox of Star Trek episodes featuring a specific character. Trivial, there are countless characters in the Star Trek franchise. There are already other templates that organize the Star Trek episodes, per specific program and season. Cambalachero (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, trivial grouping. Frietjes (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep linked articles appear to be episodes about said character (eg "Q who?" "Q2", ...) rather than just a list of appearances. I think it is reasonable to keep template to help interested readers of these articles navigate between them. --Tom (LT) 00:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
    • As I said, there are countless characters in the Star Trek franchise (see the list), and Q is just one of them. We can't have templates for all of them. Users who want to navigate between articles of Star Trek episodes will probably want to navigate in the current way: among the episodes of the specific program and season. --Cambalachero (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, an interesting template, and one that many Star Trek fans would be happy to find and use. Randy Kryn 03:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Informative and coherent. Does no harm. — JFG talk 17:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Appears to be a clear and concise template, that complements the other ST episode templates nicely. Drdpw (talk) 19:13, 15 February 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_February_7&oldid=1138373752"