Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 May 24



Template:Merge sections

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. The general consensus here is for deleting these templates, or restoring them as redirects. Since, as it was pointed out, a simple redirect doesn't pass through parameters, I am going to just delete them. However, if someone wants to recreate them as redirects, as they were, before, there doesn't appear to be any major resistance to that idea. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge sections
 * Merge section to
 * Merge section from

Here's why Template:Merge should remain a redirect towards Template:Merge (the redirects to Template:Merge were recently reverted): For a similar discussion in regards to a other template being redirected to another due to being an unnecessary template fork, please see Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 16. I'm also okay with deletion of this template, but since previous consensus seems to favor redirection, that's where I'm going with this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Its functionality is completely built into Template:Merge with the  parameter as proven in its documentation
 * 2) Having two separate templates (where one was created as a fork of another) that accomplish the same function is problematic since if one template gets updated and the other one does not, the two templates are then inconsistent
 * 3) There are no transclusions, and there haven't been since the template was redirected back in January 2015
 * 4) The documentation is quite clear to allow the reader to understand how to tag a section for merging. Also, if by chance a new category is created for "sections to be merged", it can be built into Template:Merge (by suppressing the current category and adding another whenever "section=yes" is activated.)


 * I appreciate the effort in cleaning up duplicated code, but it can't be done the slash-and-burn way, it has to offer backwards compatibility. More specifically, the section=y part cannot be lost in Merge sections. Its sole purpose is to be a handy shortcut saving users from having to type that parameter (and others). Replacing all transclusions with no discussion then asking users to give up this convenience and just RTFM puts undue weight on users. Fgnievinski (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but the statement above about "section=y" is not lost; it has been implemented in Template:Merge since even before I had redirected Template:Merge sections. That, and are editors really saving a significant amount of keystrokes for it to matter? Compare  with  ; the editor only saves 1–2 keystrokes.  Steel1943  (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That, and after I implemented the change, if I had not replaced/updated all transclusions, then that would have created a bigger problem since the wording in the sections proposed to be merged would be wrong. It's essentially the same concept as fixing links towards a disambiguation page, except the template links need to be fixed before the change happens, otherwise Wikipedia breaks. Steel1943  (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue is cognitive load. We (template folk) should support editors so that their attempts to use templates are as successful as we can reasonably make them. Not requiring them to remember whether it's a parameter or a {foo section} template is part of that.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC).


 * I respectfully disagree with parts of this statement as in theory, editors should be proof reading their edits prior to submitting them. Before clicking that "save" button without a  parameter, the editor would notice that the text says "article" and then go to the template's page to see why this is happening, see the documentation file, and then add the parameter to their template. In my opinion, if an editor knows how to place a template, they also know how to arrive to the template's page to read its documentation.  Steel1943  (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're just pushing red-tape upon other editors. Who loves to read documentation? It ought to be intuitive in the first place! You like "Merge|section=y", I prefer "Merge section", why do we need to impose our tastes unto others? Fgnievinski (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The template fork created in the process can cause more problems than they solve. Someone who used to not be familiar with templates, such as myself when I started editing Wikipedia, may assume that similar templates will appear and function the same, especially when it comes to templates related to discussions, such as this one. But then, after noticing that every deletion/discussion venue's related templates have similar notification and discussion-creating templates that all function differently, it led to confusion in itself. In my opinion, keeping two separate templates and not adding all functionality in one template to do both templates functions leads to confusion in itself. Steel1943  (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete this little-used template. If you want to "merge sections", either make your detailed suggestion on the talk page, or boldly just do it. The proliferation of merge templates, which are too often placed on articles with no corresponding talk-page discussion, is not helping towards the goal of eventually streamlining and simplifying the infrastructure supporting our merge backlog. It complicates bot and tool requirements, and adds instruction creep to project documentation. Templates are not substitutes for talk-page discussion of what to merge and where to merge it. Their purpose is simply to flag an article to indicate that it is the subject of some form of merge proposal; the talk page is where to explain the form of the proposal in detail. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That only shows the motivation/rationale has nothing to do with the template usefulness, but rather with making it intentionally harder for editors to tag sections for merger. The tag is supposed to be a discussion starter. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note it is little used because the nominator has replaced all calls to it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC).


 * Yes, I did this 4 months ago; there were only about 50 transclusions combined of these three templates, and they can be viewed starting at my contributions here, with about 5 or so on the next page. There were only about 50 combined transclusions of the three nominated templates, whereas there are currently over 11,600 transclusions of Template:Merge, Template:Merge to, and Template:Merge from combined. It wasn't until now that another editor questioned my edits while more transclusions of Template:Merge, Template:Merge to, and Template:Merge from have been created. Since it took so long for someone to question, I think that in itself shows the immediate usefulness of these templates. Steel1943  (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is 50 transclusions too few for you? That's 50 usage cases demonstrating its usefulness. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have any opinion about what is "too few", and never stated that. I was making a comparison of how many of their transclusions there were compared to the three which they previously redirected. Steel1943  (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: I have restored Template:Merge section to and Template:Merge section from from being redirects to their respective templates Template:Merge to and Template:Merge from, and added them to this discussion. My initial nomination rationale applies to these templates as well. Steel1943  (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This simply does not work you can make one template a wrapper for the other, if you wish. But as a redirect it fails, since the redirect does not know about parameters.  Anyone writing {Merge section} will simply get the {Merge} template unless they include a parameter.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC).


 * This is understood; the discussion I referenced above was closed as "redirect" with the understanding that an additional parameter would need to be activated to change the wording in the template to "section". All three of the nominated templates include a  parameter that can be activated to change the word "article" to "section". Keeping the nominated templates in existence as fully-functional standalone templates is an unnecessary template fork.  Steel1943  (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't it possible to just make Merge section call/invoke Merge with the necessary section=y parameter instead of a plain redirect? That would make us all happy (except Wbm1058 above). I think I've seen something like that using Lua scripts. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is possible, that could be an option. However, that's a call to improve the template from its current state, which is not really the purpose of why I bought this discussion to WP:TFD. As it stands, since the "section=yes" functionality is included in the other templates, this nomination can be compared to attempting to nominate them for speedy deletion criterion T3. Steel1943  (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You'll have to nominate these templates for deletion because simply redirecting them creates silent errors. Like when I transcluded Merge section earlier today and realized it was saying "this article". Most users wouldn't take the pain of investigating what was going on. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the latter part of this statement; my nomination statement about "redirecting" was based on the previous consensus formed at the other discussion, though I would prefer deletion myself. On the same token, most users who create and work articles aren't as familiar with the back workings of templates such as myself or other editors who have been editing Wikipedia for a decade or more (such as yourself). A new user even thinking about the proper use of a merge template is an occurrence that has almost no chance of happening. And if that editor knows how the wiki software that powers this site works, then, as I stated previously, they would know how to get to the template's page to locate documentation. Steel1943  (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Substitute then delete, redundant to main template. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 09:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We also have three related templates, all created by :
 * move section portions
 * move section portions from
 * move section portions to
 * I suppose if we delete the three templates proposed above, that implies deleting the three "section portions" templates as well. If we keep them, I wonder where this leads... will we see move paragraph(s) or move sentence(s) in the future? I hope not. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * makes a good point regarding the need for a template wrapper to maintain functionality. I support deprecating or deleting, but I prefer keeping (as a wrapper) to redirecting. Just want to point out though that doesn't follow redirects, so all of these many aliases need to be explicitly named in User:Merge bot/proposedmergers.php – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How would creating these "template wrappers" be accomplished? I think I understand the concept, but if it is what I think it is, I did not think it was possible to input values of another template in a template when it invokes the other template but automatically forces one of its values based on the wrapper template's name alone ... unless something is converted to Lua. (I hope that statement wasn't too confusing.) Steel1943  (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's simply a convenient shortcut that avoids the need to specify one or more parameters in the template it calls. RMtalk was another such template. We should deprecate these, informing editors that they should change the syntax of future usage, and possibly delete them, if we choose not to support the convenience of having the shell. My main issue with these "merge sections" templates is that the concept of merging originated as the solution of WP:content forks. "Merge sections" is usually a WP:summary style issue. Priority should be given to the forks, but at this point they've been overwhelmed by the summary style debates, to the point we now have a Duplication template. Actually, it's not really clear which template is for which. We have such a forest of templates that it's difficult to organize and manage them. It doesn't help that so many of them are ignored by other editors. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's a fundamental disagreement here over whether we need to provide template "shortcuts", versus a single, parameterised template. There is a long precedent to section variations of maintenance notices, which has not been given any thought. Ease of use is contingent on the proliferation of the methods that exist; of the two, " " is - perhaps - more common. Rich makes a very good point about how users of Merge section would be surprised by its (new) behaviour; therefore, I'd not support redirecting, either. Having said all that, I'm partial to all of the arguments made by  - in short, I don't think there's a whole lot of a reason for the trio to exist. It's not that big a deal if the notice says "article" instead of "section", if someone were to omit section; the proposal is supposed to be fleshed out on the talk page.  says that there have been no new transclusions since January, which does prove that the demand for these templates is extremely low, and, though they could all be made wrappers of Merge, there - indeed - remains an indeterminate maintenance burden. Alakzi (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * delete, we don't need all these additional shortcuts. Frietjes (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Judo at the 2014 Summer Youth Olympics

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Judo at the 2014 Summer Youth Olympics

Un-used - nothing but redlinks. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator's rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.