Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 June 23

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

June 23 edit

Template:Haridasa poets (Kannada) of 17th-19th century 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) 17:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Single-article content. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:14, 23 June 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:Major Divisions of Antigua and Barbuda 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) 17:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions of this navbox, and very few links. Category:Populated places in Antigua and Barbuda is probably sufficient to link these places together. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. it's all fading awaytalk 23:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, I don’t exactly think they should be put into populated places in Antigua and Barbuda as these are 2nd level administrative divisions, I think Category:Major Divisions of Antigua and Barbuda would be better. it's all fading awaytalk 23:27, 23 June 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:Revisions query 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) 17:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2009. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:01, 23 June 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:Regex/quote 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) 17:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:01, 23 June 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:Railway stations served by Lumo 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) 17:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Not really enough content for a navbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason as the nomination. Way too small. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:10, 23 June 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:Rah Ahan F.C. squad 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) 17:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. The club does not appear to have played any matches since 2018. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:55, 23 June 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:RCorrèze 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) 17:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Added it to one article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete This, as well as its chain of dependencies, are a trivial succession of wikilinks and arrows that does not amount to enough code to warrant a template. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:10, 27 June 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:Prefectural football associations in Japan 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) 17:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Empty navbox with no transclusions. Created over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:45, 23 June 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:Pler 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) 17:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:44, 23 June 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:PastACID 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) 17:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:44, 23 June 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:Namespace conversion talk 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) 17:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links from discussions. Created in December 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:41, 23 June 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:Slur 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) 17:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Does not appear to have been adopted. Created in 2020. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:34, 23 June 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:Solar Saros series 150 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) 17:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, or template parameters. Created in 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:30, 23 June 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:Ticonderoga class aircraft carrier speed and related 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 14:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of these undocumented article content templates have apparently been substed into the pages that transcluded them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:22, 23 June 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:Canadian federal election, 1997/Lisgar—Marquette 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) 17:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. According to Lisgar—Marquette and its sources, this electoral district did not exist in 1997. This template is not sourced, so it is unclear why it exists or how it may be useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:06, 23 June 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:Canadian federal election, 1891/Russell 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 relisted on 2023 June 30. Izno (talk) 17:50, 30 June 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:British Columbia provincial election, 1933/Cowichan-Newcastle 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 relisted on 2023 June 30. Izno (talk) 17:50, 30 June 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:BattleHonour/ZAR 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; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. The documentation is for {{BattleHonour}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Speedy Delete. The template is now a LUA module and the data is kept as a subset of that module. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoonDock (talk • contribs) 19:50, 23 June 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:Airline seasonal hub 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 14:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Created in February 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:10, 23 June 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:Zhing/Kunstig intelligens grafisk information 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 speedy delete (G7). (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 19:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or documentation. Created over a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — that template is still being developed, I should have left it on my user page. ⇒ Zhing-Za, they/them, 14:33, 23 June 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:WIR 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 no consensus. This discussion was well-attended, contained roughly two groups, and had a similar number of people in each group. Proponents of merging argued that this WikiProject places more banners than other WikiProjects (up to 4 per page), and that this contributes to banner blindness. Proponents of keeping the status quo argued that changing these banners would disrupt the workflow of the WikiProject, that it would result in a template with lots of code which would be difficult to maintain, and that it is rare for a WiR article to have more than one template. There appears to be no relevant policies or guidelines to tip the scales in either direction. I find that there is no consensus in this discussion. I note the canvassing and the missing TFD notification templates, but this discussion was well-attended enough that I don't think these issues should affect the close. Thank you and happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging all wrapper templates with Template:WIR.
All these wrapper templates should be consolidated into one single template. For example on Talk:2016 New York State Assembly 65th district special election the WikiProject Women in Red banner is duplicated. While we're here, can we also rename Template:WIR to the clearer and more standard name Template:WikiProject Women in Red? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nomination. Vyvagaba (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Out of all talk page WikiProject banners, these are one of the less useful, as they don't contribute to future editing as other WikiProject banners do (as tagging adds useful information about importance and quality, etc.), but rather lets people know about a past event that some random editor did "some" editing on this page. That is hardly useful. That said, this isn't a question about deleting but merging. The current situation is that all WikiProject banners have one single instance of the banner on a page, regardless of the number of task forces (of the same WikiProject) that tag it, while these "Women in Red" banners can have multiple (and potentially, dozens or more) on the same page. This leads to clutter in the top section of a talk page and a real issue of undue weight for a single project. Gonnym (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gonnym "multiple (and potentially, dozens or more) on the same page": No. There are up to 4 editathons a month plus perhaps 2 ongoing projects for the year, so no article would have "dozens" of templates. I was delighted, one month, to create an article for Wanda Szuman which was within 4 different editathons, but this was very much the exception. I'm open to ideas for change, but just wanted to correct the impression that an article might be flooded with "dozens or more" of WiR templates: it would have one, two, or very occasionally three or four. PamD 06:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but don't rename to "WikiProject Women in Red" since it doesn't support |class= and |importance=, but is instead a "hey this was created or improved during an article creation drive" notice (similar to Template:Kansas City Jazz Edit-a-thon 2018, Template:Amherst edit-a-thon, ...). I would rather see that sort of thing posted in a section on the talk page, rather than a banner at the top of the page to reduce the clutter mentioned above. But, that's probably a longer conversation elsewhere. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiProject banners do not need to support those parameters ({{WikiProject Mathematics}} did not for a long time) last I checked. The template already uses WPBannerMeta, so clearly it's thought of as a WikiProject banner.
    As for the permanence of interest of the banner, it's not different from {{GOCE}}. Which does make it a different discussion, but as we already have prior art on the point... Izno (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are quite a lot of WikiProject banners that do not support either class or importance - {{WikiProject Accessibility}}, {{WikiProject Article Incubator}}, {{WikiProject Categories}}, {{WikiProject Caves}}, {{WikiProject Commonwealth}}, {{WikiProject Days of the year}}, etc. I can supply a much longer (but still incomplete) list if necessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but {{WikiProject Women}} does support these parameters. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: There is a lucid and clear explanation of the function, intent, and usage of these wrapper banners here. It appears that quite a lot of thought and effort has gone into their creation. It also seems clear to me (the more familiar I become with this issue) that they are a separate – related, I grant you, but still separate – matter from the Template:WikiProject Women and other women related projects. One concerns the female half of humanity full stop; the other those who may well be notable yet are only redlinked (or just flat-out missing from this encyclopaedia). They do not serve the same purpose. The two types of banners can (and probably should, in many cases) be used in tandem, however, the wrappers as devised form a very useful modular tool-kit that is valuable to the WIR community and project (as they are widely used throughout). There may be ways of improving the system (see below), but I remain convinced it should be left as is until such time as there is consensus on improvement. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To @Plastikspork: {{WikiProject Women}} and {{WIR}} are separate WikiProjects. To @Cl3phact0: no, these two won't be merged, because they are entirely different WikiProjects. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's clear. Thanks. My point was that the WIR wrapper templates should not be merged. Perhaps improved, if there is consensus within the WIR project on how this could be done in a manner that satisfies everyone's needs optimally. Again, some of the ideas that were discussed below may in fact lead to that consensus – however, in my view, we are not there yet. (Above, I was simply trying to illustrate how and why the WIR wrapper templates are useful.) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a message at WT:WIR about the changes, but no one followed up with alternatives or potential disruptions that this may cause. I'd be happy to participate in any discussion that takes place over there to discuss these matters, just ping me. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 19:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I saw that. Thank you, again. All in good time. I would take the absence of a response to mean that either (a) it's under consideration and you'll eventually get some constructive feedback (which, in fact, is what I am trying to provide); or (b) there isn't much interest in this proposal and it should be abandoned. In either case, it does not imply consensus or agreement. As such, it seems prudent to park this proposal until such consensus is reached.
    [NB: Use of the conditional "would be" rather than a declarative "will be" might be helpful (as this is by no means a fait accompli).]
    In the meantime, I'll also lean more about the back-end technical aspects of the proposal (and how any undesirable workflow interruptions caused by these proposed changes might be mitigated) so that I might be able to be more useful in that part of this discussion. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • An earlier discussion about merging. I retain the same opinion as there, that these should be merged. Izno (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really participate in TFMs, so lack the understanding of best practices here. I do support mergeing them all, however, I would not want loss of information, so I would appreciate it if the templates are merged together in such a manner that the banner supports multiple events simultaneously. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 07:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. This is akin to merging {{WikiProject Physics}}, {{WikiProject Biology}} etc... to {{WPBannerMeta}}. Merging these templates will create a huge mess and make an absolute nightmare of creating new templates for new editathons. This will break the workflow of WIR and cause substantial headaches to WIR coordinators, and limit the deployment of automated tools that really on these templates, like WP:RECOG. Also ping @Megalibrarygirl, Rosiestep, and Victuallers:. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: I can understand the frustration of reviewers when more than one WIR tag appears on the same talk page but I for one find the individual tags very useful when reviewing new articles, especially those of new members of the project who frequently need assistance. I take special interest in those related to culture, music and writing but also look out for work on STEM and priorities such as climate and women's rights. We devote considerable efforts to promoting articles to DYK and I find it useful to see which articles have been created in connection with a specific event. Once they appear on DYK, they can then be listed under the corresponding event page, providing incentives for future work and possible upgrading. It is far easier to do this from the talk pages than to go into general listings and monitoring each and every article. I therefore very much hope we can continue including tags for individual events but I agree that not more than one WIR tag should be added on any talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: Merging (or deleting) these templates will have quite a negative impact on the workflow of WP:WikiProject Women in Red. Being well-organized is one of our strong suits. These talkpage templates support being well-organized. Please don't start making changes until you have discussed this thoroughly at the WikiProject's talkpage. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: What she said and ... (1) Surely its an advantage that WIR don't add to the over definition of class and importance. I know that you sometimes see a difference in importance or class from wikiproject to wikiproject (for the same article) but its usually due to lack of interest in updating these for multiple projects. There is too much duplication of info because each WP claims to independantly define these. These WPs could improve Wikipedia by not all having these parameters ... like WIR. and (2) Why object to the template being called WIR and not Women in Red - its a typing issue. They all say the full name of this project when they are displayed so the confusion is very shallow (if at all). Victuallers (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - no functional reason appears to be stated in the nomination statement while the negative impact on organizing and building the encyclopedia appears significant. For example, one of the current initiatives is {{WIR-272}} (LGBTQ+ women | Wiki Loves Pride | June 2023), which helps organize editors in a collaborative effort to create and improve articles, while the template on the article Talk page shows support for under-represented individuals and groups on Wikipedia, and directs readers and editors to further resources to help build the encyclopedia. WIR is a very active project and the various banners for editing initiatives reflects its wide scope; this is a significant support for editors and community building in a project with well-recognized disparities in coverage based on gender. Concerns about more than one banner being added to the Talk page of an article can be addressed with Wikiproject Women in Red instead of deleting (through a merge) all of the banners that represent editing initiatives. Beccaynr (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It would be excessive to merge such large templates making the resultant template too unwieldy and unmaintainable. scope_creepTalk 15:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Checking the names of the people voting merge above, none appear to be members of the Wikiproject Women in Red. (That was not surprising to me, as we are typically a very interactive group and had such a topic been proposed on the project talk page, I am fairly certain there would have been civil discussion weighing it.) It seems illogical and somewhat bizarre that without discussing the proposal with the project itself or ascertaining the project members' input on their banner organization scheme that a proposal would be made to drastically alter said scheme. Perhaps a discussion with the project is in order, but this proposal verges on being disruptive to the project goals without valid reason to how it would be of greater benefit to wikipedia as a whole. SusunW (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger. It is pretty unusual for any article to have more than one WiR banner template, but if the article is created at the intersection of two or, very occasionally, three or four editathons, then it should have those templates. These are used by some members of the WiR project in their work on the project's articles, and the carefully-built structure of templates they rely on should not be broken without thorough consideration of how else to achieve the same data collection. PamD 19:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: besides the fact that personal summons where sent to rush in one side's "strong oppose" crowd (you guys know that isn't a thing, right?), the core opposition seems to really not understand what a merge is on a technical level. Here are a few quotes to illustrate that point:
  • Merging these templates will create a huge mess and make an absolute nightmare of creating new templates for new editathons - how will it create a mess? And I really hope it will be an absolute nightmare of creating new templates for new editathons, as that is the point. There won't be a need to create 200 of these templates. Instead, a single template or module will just need to be updated with a single line of new data.
  • Listen to every WP WIR member, including me, who maintain these templates. We DO NOT want this merge as it will screw with our ability to conduct business. We've operated this way for nearly 8 years now without hassle. We do not want this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • When your business spills over to the general audience, it is not your local business anymore. This issue has been raised several times over the years by different people and yet you've ignored it. --Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging (or deleting) these templates will have quite a negative impact on the workflow of WP:WikiProject Women in Red - it won't. If it will, please explain with examples.
  • For one, we will no longuer be able to subscribe to WP:RECOG on a per-event basis. And that's touching the surface. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being well-organized is one of our strong suits. These talkpage templates support being well-organized. - irrelevant. A merge won't change that. If it will, please explain with examples.
  • This is extremely relevant. This affects how we organize and track articles and rely on automation for a great deal of tasks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it's not. Having 1 template instead of 200+ does not change anything with how WIR organize or track anything. Other WikiProject have multiple sub-pages (taskforces) and are able to track pages per task force. Why do you think this will be different? --Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why object to the template being called WIR and not Women in Red - irrelevant. But because you asked, the naming convention for WikiProject banner templates is "Template:WikiProject project". If I'm not mistaken, there are some automated tools that also depend on that (but I may be wrong about that part).
  • no functional reason appears to be stated in the nomination statement - while not in the nomination statement, but a few comments below I wrote clutter in the top section of a talk page which I eluded to Banner blindness.
  • while the negative impact on organizing and building the encyclopedia appears significant - how? Please explain with examples.
  • It would be excessive to merge such large templates making the resultant template too unwieldy and unmaintainable - how? From experience in merging, this is one of the more easiest and straightforward merges I've seen.
  • {{WIR}} and its suite of templates have an extremely complex set of behaviour depending on their use case. Merging to preserve the same functionality would be a massive undertaking, and very likely break things, and make things more complex for those of us that actually use these templates.
  • Checking the names of the people voting merge above, none appear to be members of the Wikiproject Women in Red - And?
  • That's like going to your house and giving away your kitchenware because we decided you no longer need it because we felt that it would be better for you if you were to eat with your hands instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except this isn't your house, and you don't WP:OWN anything. --Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When a group is housed in a shared space, one group does not get to secretly meet and impose decisions upon others who will be impacted by that decision. Common politeness and WP: Civility requires maintaining professionalism, a part of which is communication and care with the opinions of others, i.e. with the parties who will be impacted. SusunW (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gonnym (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
re: while the negative impact on organizing and building the encyclopedia appears significant - how? Please explain with examples - I provided examples in my comment, specifically with how one current editing initiative functions (including a link), and generally with how WIR supports editors and helps build the encyclopedia. Each banner is a separate resource, and does more than note an association with WIR. Also, the result of this proposal seems to limit specific outreach and organizing efforts to improve coverage of women - the reduction in visibility of the wide range of collaborative efforts by WIR seems like a negative impact on building the encyclopedia. Meanwhile, the benefit of this proposal remains unclear to me. Beccaynr (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym You assert that there has been WP:Canvassing, under your link "personal summons" above, but as far as I know there was a routine notification to the creator of {{WIR-184}} who then, quite reasonably, informed the Wikiproject about this discussion. It is good practice to notify any involved Wikiproject when nominating templates for discussion here, so I see no "Canvassing", just the normal act of alerting the people who use the template. PamD 09:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:PamD, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear by what I was referring to, but notice the personal summons Headbomb sent to very specific editors above. --Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym Ah, I hadn't spotted that: but if Headbomb knows that the templates are used in the workflow of three particular editors, whose work might be seriously hindered by possible change, it seems reasonable to alert those editors, don't you think? Would you prefer those editors not to be notified in time to join the discussion? I see that there was no general notification of this discussion to the relevant project (ie WiR), as is good practice. Templates for Discussion don't seem to appear in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts. (I thought I was at fault for not looking down that page further than AfDs and PRODs, but now I go back to check I see no TfDs). PamD 10:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Headbomb knows that the templates are used in the workflow of three particular editors" we have a winner here. Stealth nominating 300+ templates for merging and fucking up a Wikiproject's workflow without notifying the affected Wikiproject and those making use of those templates is what's bad from, not informing the people particularly affected by it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The opposers don't seem to understand the proposal or that no information will be lost with a merge. The individual templates link to specific meetups/events, and there will still be these direct links to the specific meetup/event after the templates are merged, as the main banner has parameters described here to link to them. Number 57 20:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's weird for this merge to be argued to both be very important and also not a big deal. In either such case, it is something that should have been discussed with the Wikiproject in question so that a resolution could be reached without even needing a TfD nomination at all. But to do this out of the blue without even bringing it up as an issue is incredibly rude and ill-proposed. I'm not seeing the problem the nominator is bringing up with the templates, as spot checks on the articles in question are not finding a meaningful issue. This just seems like an attempt to stir up trouble (for some reason). So, trout for the nominator. SilverserenC 23:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as the info for each editathon is still retained within and linked from the shell banner params. I don't see why each applicable editathon can't just be included within the same WiR banner heading, like how in the example WikiProject United States, WikiProject State Legislatures, and the 50,000 Challenge are all in one banner. Do any other WPs track every single editathon article alert/RECOG through separate TP banner templates?? JoelleJay (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: an example always helps to clarify. We are talking about moving from the top example (two separate templates) to the bottom example (one combined template).
Current
 Women in Red: Stub (2019)
 This article was created or improved during the Stub contest hosted by the Women in Red project from October to December 2019. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
 Women in Red: Asian Month (2019)
 This article was created or improved during the Asian Month edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project in November 2019. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
Proposed
 Women in Red
 This page was created or improved during the Stub contest edit-a-thon in Oct-Dec 2019 and the Asian Women Month edit-a-thon in Nov 2019, hosted by the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

This is a real example (from Talk:Anita Udeep). Hard to believe but we are actually trying to help improve your templates and we do value all the work you do. There is absolutely no intent to disrupt anything. However banner bloat is a real issue and no other project gets to have two or three separate banners on a page and this one should be no exception. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an elegant solution. Technical matters aside, I would hope to keep the banners as a stand-alone Talk page feature underneath the banner shell (like this), so that the lovely graphic logo remains visible. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I would oppose merging all into one main project template, but support having a merged sub-template within which the various edit-a-thons and other activities can be individually enumerated (per MSGJ example above). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, I appreciate your intent to help, but I think a less formal, lower-stakes discussion at WIR would be helpful, so we can explain how the project works, and you could propose technical changes to prevent more than one WIR banner occasionally being added to an article Talk page. The example added above does not appear to match the proposal in nomination statement (which seems much broader), and seems to assume the same logo is always used.
Overall, I think the concern about editors occasionally adding more than one template and a discussion about how to limit the visibility of WIR activities would be a more productive discussion at WIR. You can talk to us directly as a way to show our work is valued and there is no intent to disrupt it, instead of first creating a technical proposal here that looks like it could inhibit our work. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think a lot of the opposition is based on the assumption that some information will be lost, which is obviously not the case here. The demo should've been included beforehand for them to understand what it will actually be like, and then make up their minds. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 09:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ This looks very good, thanks, and visually is an improvement. But the visual display isn't the only function of the template. We need to hear from the members of the WiR project who use the banners for their tracking and analyses, as to whether this would hinder their work. PamD 09:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The look is fine, but the functionality is not. Merged banners will still break our workflows. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, I still Oppose the merger, unless a solution can be found which will work for the hardworking technical people of WiR as well as producing a good-looking article talk page. PamD 10:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Oppose until a solution that satisfies both technical and aesthetic criteria can be found. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain, which part of workflow will be broken. You wrote WP:ARTICLEALERTS but it appears to be working seamlessly for other WikiProject taskforces. Here, the various events will technically be taskforce-equivalent. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 10:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AALERTS won't be affected by it, because it relies on a common category (Category:All WikiProject Women in Red pages) and things are tracked at the project level. WP:RECOG will be affected by it, because it relies on {{WIR-1}}, etc. being present on the relevant pages, because we track these at the event level. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. WP:RECOG#Project parameter documents that either template or categories could be used. It specifically attends the case of banner mergers and says "If the project's template can be "merged" into another project's template (example), then the category parameter is probably a better option as not all the project's articles will be tagged with the template." Since, no functionality is lost following merger, and all relevant categories retained, one could use the specific category instead of template to get the desired data. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 11:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories which don't exist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creating categories doesn't take much effort though. Each event can be linked to a (new) relevant category, and automated tasks can be dealt with it. In the Talk:2016 New York State Assembly 65th district special election example above, we have it categorised in Category:Articles created or improved during WikiProject United States' 50,000 Challenge for example, alongside several other taskforce categories. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - categories are perfect for keeping track of these articles. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Am I right in thinking that categories like this would have to be added to the talk pages of all relevant articles? Unless this can be automated, it would take months of editing time to develop and add the correct categories to thousands and thousands of articles currently displaying a specific WiR editathon on their talk pages. Is it seriously being proposed that so much time should be wasted by those keen to reduce the gender gap?--Ipigott (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely not, the categories would be populated by the template — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, would these templates still be used?
     Women in Red
     This page was created or improved during the Stub contest edit-a-thon in Oct-Dec 2019 and the Asian Women Month edit-a-thon in Nov 2019, hosted by the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
    -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be more clear: apart from the technical matters (which I don't fully grasp), I think there is a question of usage here too. If the special edit-a-thon templates are placed outside of the banner shell (and were to include the modification suggested by MSGJ above), then it makes sense to keep them, as their use to indicate specific subsets of the WiR project is clear and logical (see example). When these are grouped together inside the banner shell (per example above), it creates multiple iterations of the project (which looks odd and may be the reason this discussion started in the first place). It seems like there is a simple solution here: keep them (with MSGJ improvement if that works on a technical level) and don't put them in the banner shell. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The two issues are separate I think. If more than one WIR banner is placed on a page then the template will create multiple iterations, regardless of whether they are placed in the banner shell or not, so the merged banner is needed in all cases. Secondly, about whether to place them in the banner shell, this is the appropriate place for all WikiProject banners as it groups them together and takes up less vertical space. People can click "show" to get more information if they are interested - we should not be forcing these banners on all editors, and it can be a lot of scrolling to get down to the discussion on some pages! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree on your first point (and think your solution is elegant). Re: my suggestion about putting the special edit-a-thon banners outside the shell, did you compare the two examples I shared? I really don't think it adds any scrolling overhead (especially if your improvement is adopted), nor does it feel like "forcing" anything on anyone. It simply indicates that there is a specific subset (or subsets) of the project. (Frankly, it looks rather nice too, in my view.) I still think they should be kept. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which example do you mean precisely? My idea would be merging and putting inside the shell. Example here — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This vs. this (the former being of my suggested usage; the latter being your example from the above thread, again). My observation about your example is that it is problematic because it replaces the "Rating" and "Importance" metrics in parentheses with the names of the sub-projects, which seems inconsistent/erroneous. I still think that best practice would be to isolate these special sub-cases outside of the shell, use your grouping method, and keep them. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I just cleaned-up my example (which has had two instances of WIR-258). Look again please. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PPS: Adding the previous version of your example for clarity. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not confuse different points. In this discussion you should vote support for merging the banners, and the issue of where to place the banners is a separate discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing is being confused. I apologise if I've been unclear. Your proposal is a variant to initial statement, which, for clarity, states: "Propose merging all wrapper templates with Template:WIR." I do not support this. I oppose it for myriad reasons as outlined above. The edit-a-thon specific sub-banners should be kept.
    I think that your proposal (plus, perhaps my placement suggestion) leads to a solution that is as diplomatic as it is elegant – a workaround that would allow this to be resolved without ruffling anyone's feathers (again, if it satisfies the various technical criteria that have been outlined above). Conflating hundreds (282 as of this date) of Wrapper templates into the one main project template {{WIR}} is neither elegant nor is it diplomatic, in my view. Presumably somebody spent a great deal of time and thought on making these in the first place. There must have been a good reason. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm confused. You did say "This seems like an elegant solution" under the proposed banner, but now say that you're opposed. Can you please clarify? —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CX Zoom: In response to your question, please see reposting of what was said above under the quotation you cite :
    To be clear, I would oppose merging all into one main project template, but support having a merged sub-template within which the various edit-a-thons and other activities can be individually enumerated (per MSGJ example above).
    I think this is consistent with what we are now discussing. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The two things are the same, as far as I understand. What you are saying is, in fact, referred as "merging". —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 13:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I'm confused... which two things are the same? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Count me as confused too. How would your solution work on Talk:Wanda Szuman? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On the Wanda Szuman talk page, you would group the four subsets of WIR events (but not the main WIR template) in one banner (per MSGJ your example) under the banner shell (per my example and per the {{DYK talk}} "Fact" banner on the page already). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "it replaces the "Rating" and "Importance" metrics in parentheses with the names of the sub-projects, which seems inconsistent/erroneous": This is the status quo. I think we should use the same format as task forces. That would be more consistent. I do not see a good reason for it to continuing to replace importance/class rating. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it was because WIR does not use class or importance so there was space available on the right side. But sure, this could (and probably should) be changed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the WPBM design shift being discussed on its talk page, it would have to be migrated as a taskforce anyway. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were to do it the way I'm describing, I believe that this problem vanishes.
    [NB: One could still use the main WIR banner in the shell too (if the "Rating" and "Importance" metrics are generated by this version of the banner and useful), though I suppose that would be up to the editor's discretion.]
    -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since, the ratings are migrated into the shell, putting WIR into the shell will allow to generate metrics based on article quality. Is this what you're referring to? —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 13:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am saying that a separate instance of the main WIR banner could be included in the shell (in addition to Martin's grouped solution for the project specific sub-banners under the shell). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, now I understand. But that would be even more redundant, as every page would then need to have atleast two banners for WIR. Wikipedia has a banner blindness problem and most talk page template mergers are a direct result to fight this problem. Currently, every talk page with a shell has WIR templates inside it. Under this proposal that would not change. The event and edit-a-thon names would be visible and clickable despite being in the shell. The specific notes, "This page was... making changes." would be visible upon clicking the [show] button as is current practice. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 14:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't follow. Where is the redundancy? It would need only to have the grouped edit-a-thon banners (per Martin). The main WIR banner in the shell would be optional. I, for one, don't use it if I've used one of the sub-banners as described (and generally, some version of the Wikiproject:Women banner is in the shell anyhow, so that part would indeed seem a tad redundant – not, however, the use of the sub-banners). I still oppose any merger of the (now 286) Wrapper templates until this has been taken-up in consultation with WIR editors/participants/members (or whatever the correct terminology may be) and more knowledgeable Wikipedians than myself. These things are obviously of use to somebody and are being used by many, many folks, so perhaps prudence is preferable here? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, the banner just under Proposed header will be the sole banner on a talk page, but it will be inside the shell. Let me know if you support or oppose this, and if oppose, why? —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 14:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* Oppose: (See above for explanation.) Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I've left a neutrally worded message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Message from CX Zoom, that outlines the key points of the proposed merger for further clarification. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Seems reasonable, as no information is lost, and helps with banner blindness. I can't understand how this would breaks workflows and hamper organisation. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and add each event as a parameter as suggested by MSGJ's explanation of how it would work. Seems a lot neater to me, and is consistent with other WikiProjects e.g. WikiProject India has each state listed as parameters. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have read with interest the contructive proposals for a merge solution but at this stage, given the considerable volume of work to be amended, it seems to me reasonable to maintain the present system for the time beig and investigate alternatives in close collaboration with Women in Red and other interested parties.--Ipigott (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will undertake to do the work needed, and I'm sure Gonnym and other interested editors will help also. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @MSGJ: Do you mean to say that you will "do the work" to find a mutually acceptable solution to this matter, or are you proposing to do the (potentially immense) post-facto mopping-up work that will be required if this "merge" were to be executed in a less than optimal manner? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WE DO NOT WANT THIS MERGE, and you do not have consensus for it. Please do not force it upon us. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Headbomb, this shouty text seems unnecessary to me. Martin isn't forcing this upon you, he's started a TfD for that reason. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @MSGJ (And any other template-writers) When you offer to undertake "the work needed", would it be possible for you to create a WIR banner shell template, for use within the main Wikiproject shell template, which would accommodate two or more WIR-NNN banners and produce a single output display like the Stub + Asian example shown above? (ie extract the editathon name text from each template, and produce a displayed message including them both/all). It seems to me that the situation is:
    • Some editors are unhappy at the visual clutter produced by multiple WIR banners on a talk page
    • WIR editors are keen to see the relevant editathon(s) mentioned on an article's talk page, not just a generic "WIR" banner
    • Some editors involved in the WIR project have established workflows which depend on those templates, and are very reluctant to see these disrupted
    • So a situation which would allow all the templates to be added, but then have them displayed in a compact, single-banner, format, would keep a lot of people happy.
    I am not a templates expert, so I don't know how easy it would be to create such a "banner shell". If it was possible, then we would need:
    • As a one-off (clever AWB work perhaps, and perhaps based on the file listed above which had a run of 700+ "WIR" pages listed as having multiple WIR banners), add the banner shell around all existing multiple WIR banners: the 700+.
    • Educate WIR project members into using the banner shell when adding multiple WIR banners (and we are quite a smart lot, so this shouldn't be difficult), and perhaps, as backup, run that same AWB job as a catch-up every now and then.
    What do you think? Is this just an impractical fantasy? @Headbomb: too. PamD 18:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the suggestion Pam. In my opinion something like
{{WIR|147|199|231}}
would be much more practical and easier to use than
{{Some kind of banner shell template| {{WIR-147}} {{WIR-199}} {{WIR-231}} }} — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ But that wouldn't help Headbomb and others who look for the templates in order to do their processes. I reckon we the banner shell template you suggest, which is exactly what I had in mind, would be perfectly "practical and easy to use" - and it would only be needed on the minority of WIR articles which relate to more than one editathon. PamD 21:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: I honestly do not understand a bit why @Headbomb tries to convince that all hell will break loose upon the merge, because it certainly won't. I've refuted his claims with evidence at least thrice before. I haven't seen anything being broken or facing damage that could convince me or anyone else voting support to reconsider their choices, except for some bolded uppercase text. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 19:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prove it. That article linked does not include one cited piece of evidence that Wikipedia has a banner blindness problem. A search for relevant articles on whether it has been studied for the platform turns up nothing for me. (Which is not to say that a search in a different geographical area might not turn up such a study.) No one has responded to my query yesterday on the WiR talk page to provide links for a study about it being a problem on WP, which keeps being repeated, but if it is a problem, where is the evidence? SusunW (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SusunW, why would it? I linked it as an explanation of what banner blindness is, not as evidence that it exists on Wikipedia. It is, however, a well known problem; see, for example, Special:Search/WP:banner blindness. It is not a problem for Wikipedia as a whole, but is limited rather to talk pages (for the most part). It seems somewhat self-evident to me. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When one supporter says its a huge problem on WP and that there is research to support it and you say there is no research and it is not a problem for WP as a whole, it begins to feel as if the phrase is being manipulated to secure a result. SusunW (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SusunW, I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you're getting at. I've said yes, this is a problem that should be fixed. I did not say there is no research, in fact, you said that. I haven't looked for any research. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've made my point. This discussion is going no where but in circles. You: It is not a problem for Wikipedia as a whole; I've said yes, this is a problem that should be fixed Me: A search for relevant articles on whether it has been studied for the platform turns up nothing for me. (Which is not to say that a search in a different geographical area might not turn up such a study.), doesn't remotely say there is no research. Endless discussion going no where doesn't build an encyclopedia, which is truly what we are trying to do here. I respectfully bow out of further discussion. SusunW (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a ton of research done and lots of data available about colors and color contrasts on the web. Probably all of them are independent of Wikipedia's usage of colors, but that doesn't translate to the effect that color standards are inapplicable to Wikipedia. Research that explains the behaviour of any average internet user also explains their behaviour when they visit a specific site called "Wikipedia". —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 21:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a completely different issue and causes actual inability to see, like the color changes newly made to collapsed banners with screamingly brilliant colors and colored icons, rendering all banners and everything else on the page impossible for me to read. I had to walk away from a GA review on this Talk:Maria Mies because after having glanced at the banner all I can see is spots. It is clear that whatever this small group of people has decided is good for the community is going to be implemented, regardless of anyone else's input. Frustrating, but it is in my experience the way WP works. SusunW (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: "Banner blindness" seems somewhat irrelevant in this context. The average Wikipedia reader (aka the public) doesn't even read talk pages. This is starting to feel Kafkaesque. It is abundantly clear that a number of key people who are deeply invested in Women in Red do not think that "[a]ll these wrapper templates should be consolidated into one single template..." (i.e., the original proposal) is a useful change to the established practice. May I please once again suggest that we agree to disagree and leave things as they are until further notice. If a solution that incorporates some of MSGJ's constructive ideas can be developed, and if this solution is acceptable to a majority of the WIR community, then wonderful, carry on. As it stands, this is clearly not the case. It now seems to me that this discussion is causing disruption and absorbing time and effort that could be better spent improving the broader purpose the overall Wikiproject. Perhaps a new wrapper is in order: {{WIR-Please stop this nonsense!}} -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cl3phact0, The average Wikipedia reader (aka the public) doesn't even read talk pages. That's not really the problem with banner blindness. Rather, it could happen on a page with an important content notice "This page is controversial; read this for some come problems etc. etc." The banner blindness caused be the excessive space taken up by these templates means that it could distract a user from the important information. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Understood. Thank you for the clarification. Is there a specific example where one could see this issue is practice? In my understanding, it does not seem to be problematic in this case (especially if an alternate proposal along the lines of Martin/MSGJ/my suggestions for usage were to be adopted). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Not that I know of, but I haven't looked. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This is the third time, you've "opposed" or written something to the extent of "should not" in bold text, please see WP:NOTVOTE. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 21:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @CX Zoom: Thanks for the link. I'll review in minute detail later, but please rest assured that I wasn't trying to put my thumb on the scales of justice, nor do any ballot stuffing, election tampering/fraud/etc. (nothing untoward) – just simple emphasis of my position having remained unchanged at each instance. (I was also not "!voting".)
      This is the first time I've (perhaps foolishly) become involved in a discussion of this sort here in the wikiverse. I may indeed think twice in future (but I have learned a great deal en-passent). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry if I was harsh, I really didn't mean to. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Cl3phact0, here's an example: Talk:Jana Amin. — Qwerfjkltalk 08:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TROUTs all around. It is uncool to act like a WikiProject has any authority whatsoever over any articles, talk pages, or templates, or that it should have any greater say than anyone else in the community. It is also uncool to propose large changes to a WikiProject's workflow without at least bringing it up with the project first. Application of WP:Etiquette and understanding of WP:Ownership could have gone a long way. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I simply don't understand why this seems to be such a contentious matter. Admittedly, I am a relative newcomer and my knowledge of certain technical aspects of the matter is limited (especially as compared to most of the folks who've participated in this discussion), but I'm perplexed: if there are people who strongly oppose this proposal, and the outcome is demonstrably (or even just claimed to be) disruptive to their workflows or their ability to achieve some stated project related goal or desirable outcome, then why persist? Insisting that they are somehow wrong or mistaken or haven't understood the proposal seems to be unconstructive. Why not just leave it as is and move on? There's plenty of work to be done elsewhere. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I simply don't understand why this seems to be such a contentious matter. – Welcome to Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you! Guess I walked into that (but to err is human and all that jazz).

    Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. - Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism

    Bonus Tracks: Fools Rush In (Where Angels Fear to Tread)
    Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and also support sanction for User:Headbomb's blatant WP:CANVASing. I also note that whatever was said above, WT:WIR is not the place to "discuss it first", per WP:LOCON. SN54129 13:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no canvassing. I've pinged three editors who are particular affected by this. If you want to sanction anyone, sanction the nominator for stealth nominating ~300 templates for merging while only placing a nomination template on {{WIR-184}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell the arguments for merging are (a) multiple templates on one page, and (b) best practices for combining similar notices for the sake of optimization. Regarding (a) I am reminded of the Wiki Ed class assignment banners, where yes, there were sometimes 6+ banners on a single talk page. They were eventually replaced with a more easily archivable talk page comment. Importantly for that case, however, the banners served no purpose other than to alert editors (i.e. it wasn't used for tracking, etc.). In this case, it sounds like they are relied upon for tracking, and stakeholders are concerned that a single template will not adequately serve the purpose (or will be too cumbersome to work with practically). Perhaps more importantly, although the nomination of [hundreds?] of templates for deletion/merging conjures images of pages upon pages of banners on a talk page, so far I haven't seen more than two on the same page? That makes the problem rather hypothetical, doesn't it? If there are several examples of six on a page, I think it would be easier to communicate urgency. Regarding (b), I'm reminded of the Art+Feminism article templates. In that case, someone created the centralized template first and modified it based on feedback while nominating the individual years for deletion. Would've been better to get feedback from stakeholders first, but the end result seems fine. Those A+F templates were just used once a year, though, rather than a dozen or more times each year, making the maintenance much easier. The parameters are self-evident (just a year) rather than something which would need to be cross-referenced.
    All in all, with the absence of evidence of a problem, high degree of complexity compared to similar examples, and importance in not just communication but tracking, I'd say Keep, with advice to WiR coordinators to consider that as more banners are created and the more often people notice multiple on a single page, the more likely it will be for consensus to tilt towards combining. In other words, it may be worth giving it some thought outside the pressures of a TfD. FWIW. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't understand the argument for merging. If a WikiProject wants to have a lot of banners, and they don't mind if they are all collapsed, I don't see what the problem is. Standardization is fine if there is a rational basis, but I'm just not seeing that here. jps (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact they do mind them being collapsed, see the discussion at their project talk page, use ctrl+f to find "collap" and you shall find it. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 21:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's three hits for 'collap' and only one person objects ("I find it frustrating... I am also not likely to do anything about it"). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Please don't misrepresent what was said. I said I did not like them to be collapsed, but if someone did I wouldn't do anything about it. To my knowledge no one else expressed an opinion. I do not speak for Women in Red and my single opinion on the matter represents only my own opinion. SusunW (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would help if you could accept that there is an (albeit minor) issue here, which can and should be resolved. Tell me if you appreciate your fellow editors' concerns with Talk:Jana Amin? If not, then how many WIR banners would you expect to see before the community has a valid concern about the space taken up by these banners on talk pages? As we can expect these to grow further (as the project continues with its excellent work) it will reach a stage where the number of banners is excessive, so why not get this fixed now? Otherwise we will be back here in a few months/years taking up more of your valuable time discussing this. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, rather than waste more precious electrons on this discussion, let's see how controversial a collap sort of approach really is on this example page [1]. jps (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As this proposal does not involve consolidating all wrapper templates one single template (the original proposal), I can't see how it would be controversial at all. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not understand why Martin's suggestion(s) (effectively an alternate way of doing this that also does not involve consolidating all wrapper templates one single template) has not been explored further:
 Women in Red
 This page was created or improved during the Stub contest edit-a-thon in Oct-Dec 2019 and the Asian Women Month edit-a-thon in Nov 2019, hosted by the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cl3phact0: Actually this is what we are suggesting all along. This is a single template, right? And a merger would create just this. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CX Zoom: I think it is fair to say that you have not convinced most of those who've (kindly) taken time to discuss this matter that Martin's example (above) is the same as:

Propose merging all wrapper templates with Template:WIR.


I for one remain dubious and believe that it is not (syntactically, technically, or practically). Why is it that in the Jana Amin example that we're using, this error is displayed:

The template below (WIR-00-2021) is being considered for merging.


What would happen to the circa 300 wrappers in a post-merge scenario? What would the error message read in that case? This is still really murky (and I apologise again if my technical knowledge is not as deep as yours).
Is it possible to show an example of Martin's suggested solution (outside of the banner shell in the {{WIR}} template I've placed on Jana Amin)? Thanks, Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once the merger is completed, the "The template below (WIR-00-2021) is being considered for merging." message will be gone. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so then where would the WIR-00-2021 template be? (Where would it's circa 300 sisters and brothers be, for that matter?) If the answer is "gone", all merged into one template, then your aren't answering my question clearly.
[NB: The conditional "If the merger were..." might be preferable to the declaratory Once the merger is... in making these points. Perhaps it's only a question of syntax, but the former implies that this merge has been !agreed, which is clearly has not. This is unconducive to consensus in my view.] -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cl3phact0, If the answer is "gone", all merged into one template, then your aren't answering my question clearly. This is mystifying to me, because that's what would happen if these templates were merged. The wikicode would be moved to inside the WIR template. What is unclear about that? Frankly, I cannot understand your arguments above. What would the error message read in that case? It's a notice of a merger discussion, not an error message. If there is consensus to merge the templates, then the discussion could be closed accordingly, and the notice will no longer be necessary.
I also do not understand why Martin's suggestion(s) (effectively an alternate way of doing this that also does not involve consolidating all wrapper templates one single template) has not been explored further. This is, as far as I understand, what Martin is suggesting, but the example you give is, to my eyes at least, a single template. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. While the maximum number used doesn't get up to the six that Rhododendrites mentions for WikiEd, there are many with four; for example, Talk:Alia Abu Tayeh, Talk:Gabrielle Patterson, Talk:Mariza Dias Costa, and Talk:Zarifa Ghafari. This is excessive, and combining them is in the best interest of maintaining talk page usability. BilledMammal (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into one template which addresses the "multiple WIR per talk page problem" without compromising usability. Frietjes (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the issue. Merging will compromise usability and wreck havoc on the management of WIR's workflow, and break WP:RECOG-handling and so on. Leave these templates alone. There's a handful of pages with multiple WIR banners on them, if that's such an issue, just shove 'em in a {{WPBS}} and be done with it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Headbomb, it seems unclear that this will actually break RECOG, as CX Zoom commented above. How will this compromise usability and wreck havoc on the management of WIR's workflow? Can you give more specific issues or examples? — Qwerfjkltalk 11:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It will. RECOG uses {{WIR-251}} to generate DYK listings for Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/251. Merge them, and then it can't do that anymore. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but is there a specific reason we can't have Category:WikiProject Women in Red Meetup 251 articles or a category along those lines? Because once we have this category, WP:RECOG can use it to create DYK listings without any loss of functionality. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 11:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Headbomb, and about compromise usability and wreck havoc on the management of WIR's workflow ? — Qwerfjkltalk 11:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Headbomb, I'm afraid you haven;t given any clear examples of problems, but rather vague complaints, such as: they will create a huge mess, We DO NOT want this merge as it will screw with our ability to conduct business., This affects how we organize and track articles and rely on automation for a great deal of tasks., and Merged banners will still break our workflows. These are not specific enough, as I said. How? — Qwerfjkltalk 11:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Headbomb, and as CX Zoom said, WP:RECOG#Project parameter documents that either template or categories could be used. It specifically attends the case of banner mergers and says "If the project's template can be "merged" into another project's template (example), then the category parameter is probably a better option as not all the project's articles will be tagged with the template." Since, no functionality is lost following merger, and all relevant categories retained, one could use the specific category instead of template to get the desired data.
    So the templates are not necessary for RECOG. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They are as of writing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Headbomb, yes, that's what a merge would change. That's the point. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Support. Including all the different drives in one banner should hardly disrupt anything, since each parameter can be coded to generate whatever catgeories, etc., are desired. Really, it isn't much different from a task force. And merging will certainly cut down on banner blindness and proliferation, especially as WIR shows no sign of stopping any time soon. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a problem with WIR that I've missed? "[E]specially as WIR shows no sign of stopping any time soon..." seems an odd turn of phrase. Is WIR doing something that should stop? Happy editing, Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was pointing out that WIR, as a project, is still going strong, which means they will likely have more drives and edit-a-thons in the future, which could lead to even more banners. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Break edit
  • Additional comments: First of all, I would like to thank Rhododendrites for presenting a very reasonable summary of the situation. But I would also like to point out that there are in fact very few talk pages with four banners and that those mentioned above had virtually no page views until the currect discussions. They represent a drop in the ocean compared to the tens of thousands of article talk pages using WIR tags. As far as I can see (and I carefully review and assess new WIR articles as well as those tagged with othe women-related wikiproject banners), some 99% of all pertinent articles contain only one WIR template and the majority of WIR participants generally only add one even in cases where a new article relates to two or more editathons or areas of interest. Furthermore, I see that WIR-00-2021 is one of the few templates which specifically carries a message that it is a candidate for merging while nearly all the others cited as causing problems do not. This all provides a very warped view of the apparent intention to merge all the WIR article talk page templates. If this is indeed the intention, then merger messages should be placed on each and every template so that contributors who have used them or who intend to create or expand article talk pages can be alerted. Up to now, those members who have taken part is this discussion have come along mainly as a result of items on the main WIR talk page. If those proposing a merge seriously intend to cover all WIR article tags, then it seems to me that the current proposal should be withdrawn. This whole lengthy discussion appears to me to be calling for a solution to a non-existent problem.--Ipigott (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can see (and I carefully review and assess new WIR articles as well as those tagged with othe women-related wikiproject banners), some 99% of all pertinent articles contain only one WIR template and the majority of WIR participants generally only add one even in cases where a new article relates to two or more editathons or areas of interest. 95% contain only one, not 99% - and an in my opinion, 5% containing multiple is excessive when the number of pages with such banners are in the tens of thousands. It is better to merge them to improve talk page usability and address the problems with bnanner blindness. BilledMammal (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. As you seem competent in dealing with these statistics, BilledMammal, could you provide a breakdown of how many have two banners, three banners or four banners. In my opinion, while two banners may not present a major problem, there may well be a case for improving displays with three or more. But all this should be the subject of a new discussion rather than this meandering set of evolving observations.--Ipigott (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I set up tracking categories but they are being very slow to populate — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is useful. It shows we are talking about 26 talk pages with three WIR banners and 15 with four. None have more than four and it hardly seems worthwhile making a big deal out the 254 talk pages with two banners. Interesting to see there are no pages with five banners.--Ipigott (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not! It shows that the tracking categories have not populated yet. Until the total of those subcategories makes up 0 you cannot draw any conclusions from it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've purged them all. The breakdown is 2 banners‎ (2,085 P), 3 banners‎ (134 P), 4 banners‎ (15 P). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Headbomb. Looks like we have found them all then. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting to see that only four editors are behind the 15 talk pages with four banners. But they are among our keenest participants.--Ipigott (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very cool. I'd like to learn how to do this! Could you please add "Pages with 1 WikiProject Women in Red banner" as well? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a good idea (and a reasonable request): merger messages should be placed on each and every template so that contributors who have used them or who intend to create or expand article talk pages can be alerted. The "if it ain't broke, then don't fix it" voices may swell. Or not. Either way, it would be good to know. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although, it is kinda late already, @Cl3phact0 would you want me to place merger messages on each template? —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 07:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
also ping @Ipigott. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 07:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that depends on the state of affairs here. If the proposal is being parked until some future date when consensus on how this might be done in a mutually acceptable manner, then no, that would be unnecessary. However, if the matter is still an open question (and it's not a load of busy-work for you), then it may be worthwhile to see who else cares about this. Please get consensus on this from other, more technically savvy folks, too. We wouldn't want to inadvertently spark a revolution ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no strong feelings on whether to merge the templates or not, but I'd be leaning toward opposing merging after reading some of the above. However, I would strongly object to such templates being outside of the banner shell (where present). They are clearly project templates and should be inside it, to reduce talk page clutter. Ideally grouped together if multiple WIR templates. Even the Vital templates can now go inside. I also want to note that changes may need to be made to WP:RATER, depending what is decided here, but that doesn't seem to be maintained anymore. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    RATER uses the template code to create a list of all parameters, so any outcome of this particular discussion won't need updates to RATER. For example, if you add/remove a taskforce to a WP Banner, RATER automatically detects it and presents the main window (might require a WP:PURGE though). —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 15:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was under the impressive it had some WIR-specific coding in it (User:Evad37/rater/app.js isn't exactly easily human-readable). As for example in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jana_Amin&diff=prev&oldid=1164271030 it turned {{WIR-184}} into {{WIR-00-2021}}, presumably from a look-up table somewhere. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    {{WIR-184}} is a redirect to {{WIR-00-2021}}. That is why it automatically bypasses them. For example, at Special:Diff/1164281501, it turned {{MILHIST}} to {{WikiProject Military history}} and {{WikiProject USA}} to {{WikiProject United States}} automatically, while leaving {{WikiProject Internet culture}} alone. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that makes sense. I'd only got as far as searching for "women in red" and "wir" in the app.js code. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It does have some WIR specific code because in my understanding, it only picks up templates of the type "Template:WikiProject Lorem ipsum", with the exception of WIR banners, which do not have the "WikiProject" prefix. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kj cheetham, as the page says, User:Evad37/rater/app.js is a compressed version, built from the repository at https://github.com/evad37/rater. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Qwerfjkl Silly me for missing that! https://github.com/evad37/rater/blob/master/rater-src/getBanners.js seems to be where the code is to look for the WIR wrappers specifically, just by checking if it's in Category:Wrapper templates for WikiProject Women in Red. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CX Zoom: Thanks for this. What's the difference between the {{WIR}} templates and the {{ArtAndFeminism article}} templates? WP:RATER moves the former into the banner shell, but not the latter. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess, same as what I said in the just above reply. Rater only handles templates with the "WikiProject" prefix, with special code to handle WIR. {{ArtAndFeminism article}} neither has "WikiProject" prefix nor special code to handle the exception. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess was wrong. Now that Qwerfjkl shared a more readable file at github, I've come to realise that it simply extracts templates from some categories. {{ArtAndFeminism article}} is not a member of any of those categories. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 11:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be better to have a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red on what improvements can be made to the project banners in question, accounting for the workflow of project members. I feel there should be a way forward, and that it will be easier to determine the details at the WikiProject discussion page instead of this one. isaacl (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. If this results in rough consensus for a merge then I and other interested editors will of course hold detailed discussions with the WikiProject on how it should be deployed to ensure that no functionality will be lost. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I think a merge discussion on this page is premature, without having established the necessary requirements from the WikiProject. I feel it is more collaborative to first discuss improvements for a WikiProject-specific template with the WikiProject participants. I think a discussion on this page would only become necessary if there were a dispute to resolve on the best way forward, but without having engaged the interested editors from the WikiProject, this isn't known yet. isaacl (talk) 23:53, 10 July 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:Infobox station/Header OASA 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 relisted on 2023 June 30. Izno (talk) 06:38, 30 June 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:International 14 World Championship medallists 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 02:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused chart which isn't needed as the International 14 World Championships has the same chart as part of the article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination Vyvagaba (talk) 12:40, 23 June 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_June_23&oldid=1200363332"