Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 15



Template:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ~ RobTalk 16:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC) This template is an infobox that is only used on one article, and that infobox has now been substed, making this template redundant. epicgenius (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016
 * The reason I created the template was because the information on the campaign page and the endorsements page remained woefully and perpetually out of sync. This template should not be substed. — LLarson   (said &amp; done) 01:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is already substed. It can be transcluded from one page to the other using section transclusion, which I have now done. This template is currently redundant, since it only used on two pages. Also, it is substed on one page, with the transclusion of the substed box to the other page. epicgenius (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was just in the middle of getting it done—thanks for beating me to it! — LLarson   (said &amp; done) 02:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. do you still wish to keep that infobox template, since both instances of this infobox are now transcluded from the campaign article? epicgenius (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It’s time to pull the plug. Thank you again. — LLarson   (said &amp; done) 02:31, 16 March 2016 (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).

Template:User Frasier

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Uncontroversial, given the deletion of the proposed WikiProject in userspace. See this MfD. ~ RobTalk 15:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Orphaned unused template for a non-existent WikiProject. Misleading to link to a userspace version of a project. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User Frasier
 * Userfy the proposed WikiProject is currently in userspace, so this should be moved into a subpage of that proposal page User:Bernstein2291/WikiProject Frasier/Template: User WikiProject Frasier -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Userfy per .39 (and WP:UM) —PC-XT+ 03:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ...and, of course, delete if the drafted WikiProject is deleted —PC-XT+ 03:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As a note to closers, let's wait on the close of the MfD for the "temporary project page" currently residing in userspace. I think it's clear that the outcome of this TfD depends upon that MfD. ~ RobTalk 17:02, 23 March 2016 (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).

Template:Venus & Mars tracks

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete as unopposed after ensuring Jett Rebel is on all relevant articles. ~ RobTalk 17:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Links to only 2 song articles which probably should be redirected anyway. At the very least, the navigation box Jett Rebel is certainly simple enough to provide similar navigation without issue. Also, much precedent already set from nominations of similar track list templates because of this redundant navigation. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Venus & Mars tracks
 * 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:Virginia Slims of Boston tournaments

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Relisted here. ~ RobTalk 05:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Also propose deleting Navboxes with just one or two links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Virginia Slims of Boston tournaments
 * Virginia Slims of Albuquerque tournaments
 * Oppose Virginia Slims of Boston template now contains a sufficient amount of links.--Wolbo (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2016 (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).

Template:Split from and Template:Split to

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge at "split article" in an interoperable fashion with copied, should there be support for another merge in the future. Izkala (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Propose switching names of Template:Split from and Template:Split to.
 * Split from → Template:Split to
 * Split to → Template:Split from

After stumbling upon this for years, I'd really like to figure out now whether I'm right or wrong that these two templates are completely misnamed, and should basically switch names. Procedurally, if there is consensus, we'll have to go through every single tranclusion and see whether the template was placed following the template's title or the actual wording. Don't worry, we'll figure out a way to get that done. PanchoS (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Find better names for both: I was tripped up like you the first time I found these. However, the crux is the names are ambiguous either way.  It depends on how you're looking at it:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Template !! Current meaning !! Proposed meaning
 * || Article was split from this page || This page was split from Article
 * || Article was split to this page || This page was split to Article
 * }
 * Rather than swapping the two names, which is only going to make the situation more confused, I'd come up with new, unambiguous names for both. Maybe Template:Split from here and Template:Split to here, but there are probably no dearth of better names.—Ketil Trout (&lt;&gt;&lt;!) 21:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * }
 * Rather than swapping the two names, which is only going to make the situation more confused, I'd come up with new, unambiguous names for both. Maybe Template:Split from here and Template:Split to here, but there are probably no dearth of better names.—Ketil Trout (&lt;&gt;&lt;!) 21:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment instead, how about was split from and was split to since "split" could indicate an active request, as it is also the present tense form (like merge to and merge from instead of merged to and merged from -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I support switching "from" and "to" in these templates as they never made sense to me, they should match the usage of merged to and merged from and afd-merged-from which make more logical sense in my opinion and WP:CONSISTENCY -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How about split source and split destination? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I take it the template "source" would be for the page where the information originated from and template "destination" for the page where information was placed into ? -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are my intended meanings. I did not explain in detail as I wanted to see if they were obvious. They have passed a test of one user, which is a good start, but inconclusive. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There is an error in the above table. The actual meanings are:
 * "Article was split from this page" and "Article was split to this page" don't make sense. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I always have to check the documentation whenever I use these.  I would not support swapping them as it still leaves it ambiguous depending the editor's point of view. I support the proposed renaming of source and destination. --Whpq (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 *  Support (see below; better alternative) renaming to Split from here and Split to here since those are unambiguous namings if and only if the redirects go from the current destination to the future destination of the template (i.e. don't swap the redirects). Editors who spent years trying to figure these poorly named templates out shouldn't have the rug pulled out from under them, and the clean-up work to swap redirects would be massive. ~ RobTalk 05:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Split to here implies that the template is for splitting the article back to itself, which makes no sense at all. The reality is, whatever the templates are called, people will get them wrong unless they read the documentation. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? A reasonable reading of Split to here suggests content was split from somewhere else to the current location. Your reading makes no sense, as you identified. ~ RobTalk 06:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Others have indicated that Split from and Split to are confusing and this suggestion just adds "here", which is essentially the same. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree that adding here isn't that different. Peter (Southwood) has made an excellent proposal that removes the from and to wording replacing it with much clearer wording of source and destination. -- Whpq (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Or we could try Split to here from with the source article name as a parameter and Split from here to with destination article name as parameter. Typing a few extra words in an unambiguous template would take far less time than working out what they mean each time with the current names. Getting a bot to replace the old templates is less likely to go wrong if the new ones have clearly different names. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ideally a splitting wizard would do all the splitting, tagging and recording of diffs automatically and the user just has to mark the source text and the destination position and answer any necessary questions, but that is another proposal altogether. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How do these extra words fix the perceived problem and how would this splitting wizard work? (code wise I mean). Can you put something in the template sandboxes to show how the wizard does all this? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps your perception differs, but to me if it says "split to here from 'Source article name'", I would know that "here" refers to the destination article talk page.
 * I wish I could suggest some code. Unfortunately that is outside my current skill set. I don't even know what language a wizard would be coded in. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Which proposal is the "excellent proposal"? I'm not seeing anything other than the suggestion I supported. The "was split from"/"was split to" is clearly ambiguous still, since we don't know whether it was the source article that was split from or the current article. On the other hand, "here" refers directly to the current article to differentiate between names. We could also possibly go with the slightly longer Split to this article/Split from this article to be even more clear. ~ RobTalk 14:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It was "How about split source and split destination?" By using split source and split destination wording, we avoid using "to and "from" in any form, and the phrases "source" and "destination" make it very obvious which is for the source article for the split, and which is the destination article for the split. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That wording works too. At this point, whoever closes should probably pick one out of these and then create redirects from the other suggestions. People can choose which they prefer to use. We all agree that the current names are bad. ~ RobTalk 17:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Alternate proposal - So just to make things more confusing, I want to throw out a different proposal. All of the discussion has assumed we need different templates at the source and destination article talk pages.  Why?  Would it not be easier to have the same template at both the source and destination.  The editor dong the split can place the same template in both locations.  I suggest something like  >. -- Whpq (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support merge as first choice. Sidesteps the issue nicely and reduces redundancy. ~ RobTalk 19:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * to get some eyes on this before someone comes along and closes the discussion. This proposal is worth discussion before the close. It seems like an obvious winner to me. If I missed any contributors at this TfD, please feel free to ping them as well. ~ RobTalk 21:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice idea in principle. How would the diffs be handled? what would the display include/look like?&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to Reaffirm my original proposal. I don't think I agree with 's position that the naming would be ambiguous either way. IMHO clearly suggests the current page contains content split from that other page, which – while exactly not how it currently works – would be in line with and. Ultimately, I also don't think that the alternate, merge proposal is the best solution – sorry – as it further complicates the template's usage, offering two mutually exclusive parameters to pick from. A (Twinkle) wizard, as suggested by would clearly be awesome, and something we should subsequently propose. It would just be the cherry on the cake, with another, second cherry being: allow rolling both templates into. But even if these cherry toppings were ready by today, we'd still have to get the templates' basic syntax fixed. In the end, I stand by my original proposal to switch the names so they make obvious sense and are in line with and. --PanchoS (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging me to finally return to this discussion.
 * I don't think I understand your position - what do you mean by "mutually exclusive" parameters? He was suggesting that all template uses contain both the source and destination pages in them, which would then generate text that looks something like "Content from XXXX was split to YYYY". This would display on both pages. Could you explain what part of that involves mutual exclusivity? ~ RobTalk 22:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, these templates are placed on the Talk page of the respective article, and we're usually not hardcoding the title of the corresponding page in a template, for the following reason: if the article (together with its Talk page) gets renamed at a later point, we don't unnecessarily want yet another place where the page mover has to correct a parameter. Actually, in order to ensure the attribution chain is never broken, we'd need to put in the page ID of the counterpart (see "Page information" in the Toolbox). But yeah, this doesn't mean the parameters were mutually exclusive. The template could match the given input with the current page name and show only the counterpart. So yes, maybe it's not all too bad, but still I fail to see how may be considered ambiguous, especially not if the template's output reads "Material included in the associated article page was split from that other page". If I'm not completely mistaken, this is not ambiguous at all. --PanchoS (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I really don't see any clear "winner" in all of the proposed names. They are either just as ambiguous as the existing names are claimed to be, or they are too long. As for merging the two, that does have some merit, but what would the resultant template be called? Split? um, no, that wouldn't work. The name still needs to be worked out, regardless of whether you rename or merge. A wizard is really outside the scope of this discussion. There are far too many variables when splitting content from one page to another, and somebody would have to write the code, which is not a 5 minute job, and you have to find someone willing to do it. "Hey Siri, split this page for me", just won't work.
 * we're usually not hardcoding the title of the corresponding page in a template, for the following reason: if the article (together with its Talk page) gets renamed at a later point, we don't unnecessarily want yet another place where the page mover has to correct a parameter. Maybe I've misread you, but we do actually include the source or destination page names when splitting. Redirects mean nothing has to change unless somebody subsequently deletes the redirect. I split List of NCIS episodes 7 years ago and it hasn't been a problem yet.
 * For the record, my preference, if there is a need to change (and I'm not yet convinced that there is), would be to set these templates up like refimprove. refimprove section is not a stand-alone template. It actually calls refimprove and needs that template to work, as all the functionality is there. For these templates, both split from and split to would call another template, like split article. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 01:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The names of articles changing could be solved by a continuous run bot if that's actually an issue. This is the sort of task that people tend to pick up. ~ RobTalk 04:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * merge to create as proposed. Frietjes (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge as Frietjes (above). Having just divided a long article into several, this twisted my melon man. One template to rule them all! fredgandt 23:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to copied, which covers both of these cases, and also those where not all of the split content was deleted from the source article. One template is enough, per the above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2016 (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).