Open main menu

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 September 4

September 4Edit

Template:Brexit sidebarEdit

Propose merging Template:Brexit sidebar with Template:United Kingdom in the European Union.
largely duplicative templates. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Merge The Brexit-only template is redundant, and should be merged into the one on British membership of the EU. - Ssolbergj (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Do not merge. Both templates are about different things in their substance. One is about the UK in the EU, the other about the UK trying to leave. -Mardus /talk 16:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, they both concern the UK’s EU membership - be it accession, membership period or potential secession. -Ssolbergj (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Do not merge - Brexit is a specific topic and the merged one would be WP:TOOLONG. FOARP (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Do not merge - per FOARP argument. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge. Note that {{United Kingdom in the European Union}} is already a very large template; if I show all the hidden sections, it's four times the height of {{Brexit sidebar}} on my computer screen. I count 106 links in the UK in EU template's Brexit section, versus 36 in the Brexit template, and there's probably a good deal of overlap between the two. Among the 70+ links not in Template:Brexit, why aren't they? Proposed referendum on the Brexit withdrawal agreement is surely in scope, for example, but it's only on UK in EU. If length of template is an issue, despite the collapsed sections, the solution is to move all but the most important Brexit links from UK in EU to Brexit. Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge. Basically the same topic. The length of the merged template shouldn't be an issue when using hidden sections. -- P 1 9 9   18:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge. All of the links on Template:Brexit sidebar were already on Template:United Kingdom in the European Union bar Proposed second Scottish independence referendum which I've now added. Template:Brexit sidebar is now redundant; worth 'merging'/removing to avoid confusion. Legendiii (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
    • To follow, I've realised I've missed Postcards from the 48% but I'm sure we can find a space for that if it is notable enough to include. Otherwise, as above. Legendiii (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @FOARP: & @John Maynard Friedman: This should hopefully allay any WP:TOOLONG-related fears? Legendiii (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I can see a strong case for merging in almost every case where either is used. The big exception is the Irish Border: if this merger happens that that article will have to have "UK in EU" sidebar and an "Ireland in EU" sidebar (which opens the can of worms per MOS:Ireland-related articles - I've had my fingers burnt in the past by failing to recognise sensitivities so I tread very cautiously if at all).
      • So Plan B: I wonder is it possible to have a Brexit-only sidebar that is capable of standing alone where needed but is embedded in the UK in EU sidebar for all other contexts? it would be exactly the current content and appearance of the Brexit section of the current UK-in-EU. Is that possible? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
        • @John Maynard Friedman: I understand your concerns - I think this (Brexit and the Irish Border) has only become an issue because of the UK-EU relations and not because of Ireland-EU relations, therefore there is no need for an Ireland in the EU sidebar in this article. Instead, if you still wanted to ensure there was an Ireland-related sidebar alongside the UK-EU one, you could use the Template:Politics of the Republic of Ireland sidebar with the 'foreign relations' section expanded/shown? This would be a solution that wouldn't require splitting out the template and adhere to MOS:Ireland-related articles. Legendiii (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge. Agree that the two templates are mostly duplicative. --RaviC (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree. Besides, Template:2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum is just titled 'Brexit' and contains the same stuff in a third template, on the same pages. - Ssolbergj (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree, although I believe we can keep both the navbox and a sidebar without merging per WP:NAV: only the two sidebars ought to be merged. Legendiii (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge – One sidebar is enough, as many articles are present in both. — JFG talk 17:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't merge I agree that the current situation is not tenable, but surely see the need for a Brexit-only sidebar. A lot of Brexit-related stuff are actually UK-internal stuff, and is not directly related to EU. Perhaps we should remove all the Brexit-related content from the UK-in-EU-template bar the most important ones? Or embed the Brexit-sidebar within a collapsible as suggested by John Maynard Friedman. As it is now, Brexit it taking all the focus in the UK-in-EU-template, also when used on EU-articles not having any relation to Brexit at all. Merging would be my third choice. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Cite journal: Rice cetacea classificationEdit

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. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this should probably be individually cited rather than transcluded in specific pages. While we do have cite-specific sources, those tend toward having at least one parameter for use as a template. It is named oddly too. Izno (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  • substitute and delete, not the best use of a template. Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
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).