Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates/Archive 4

how to find the available templates?
It would, in my opinion, be good if more and more references were expressed using templates instead of free text.

But there seem to be quite a few possible templates to chose between, which, of course, there is nothing wrong with per se. The question is only: how do wikipedia editors find the right one. Is there some kind of list of them, where it maybe even could be noted which of them to prefer?

It's an obvious problem with wiki-projects, that many things that seem self-evident for experienced editors are somewhat harder to see for the less experienced. This may be such a case. /Johan M. Olofsson (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , there are a bunch of refrence/external link template, which are (almost) all found in Category:External link templates. Most seem to be fairly self-explanatory, but not all of them. I'm not sure if there's a foolproof method of finding one specific reference template, but my suggestion would be to do a search and limit it to the Template namespace (for example, this search for "Runeberg" turns up a template that can be used as a ref for that site). Primefac (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I see!
 * Template:Runeberg actually illustrates my question quite well. Is there some reason to use such a template instead of template:Cite book? Would it, for instance, make it easier to handle link rot? Should users (for this reason, or for any other) be advised to use such a specialized template instead of the more generic ones?
 * /Johan M. Olofsson (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, Runeberg might not have been the best example of a good reference template. A good reference template will fill in 90% of the information, with the remaining info usually the URL or distinctive information about a source. This allows standardization between articles, and means if the website changes its URL scheme (as happens from time to time) one change on the template itself will fix all of the transclusions.
 * While they're not reference templates, IMDb name and Facebook are examples of slightly better templates - you input one or two parameters and it gives a relatively large output of pre-formatted information. Primefac (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You can always browse through Category:Citation Style 1 templates and its subcategories. Those categories are manually applied, so it won't have everything. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So, to summarize:
 * There exists no guidelines: It's up to the discretion of the different editors, which source/citation template to choose, if any at all.
 * (Not intended as criticism of any kind.)
 * /Johan M. Olofsson (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. Some ref templates get deleted (usually as "unused" or "fails ELINK guideline") but a bunch more hang about. Primefac (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * - there's also the option of using the VisualEditor, which has a function for auto-generating references from links (essentially by parsing data from the target page into the Citation Style 1 templates that mentioned above). I do recommend giving VisualEditor a go - I use both it and source editing for different purposes, and can strongly recommend a lot of its automated functions. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Help template
The Template:Help template (abbreviated ) should used on every template documentation subpage. This template helps users with questions about a template to request help on this talk page. See Template:Help template for further information. Yours aye, Buaidh  22:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you would need to demonstrate consensus for this site-wide change to template documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be smarter (and easier) to have a discussion about adding For help with this template or to suggest changes, please contact WikiProject Templates to the footer of the documentation template. Might be worth re-nominating this at TFD. Primefac (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That template’s advice is completely the wrong advice to give, pointing people to this low-traffic notice board. The first place to ask for advice about a template is its talk page. Even if it is low traffic it is probably watched by anyone who has worked on the template, as well as other interested parties. It’s in particular the only place to ask for changes and put in edit requests, but is also generally the best place just to ask questions. No need to link to the talk page as it’s linked at the top, as on every page.


 * If that does not work post a note on a project noticeboard, pointing to the template discussion. Even then this is probably the last place to ask for help; questions about which articles to use it in belong on the project for those articles. Technical questions are better asked at WT:LUA or WP:VPT. So yes, TFD seems the best place for it. -- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 22:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Help template
Template:Help template has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Buaidh 09:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

New RFC on Template:ILL
Join the discussion at Village_pump_(policy).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: The RFC has been closed as premature. To quote WP:Consensus can change: Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive. This includes overly hasty attempts at a new RFC on a "no consensus" result. There has been inadequate time for reconsideration since the last RFC on the issue, and negligible effort or opportunity for productive dialog between the two sides. Alsee (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Interpretation of Template:Interlanguage link usage RFC
Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates was finally closed today as "No Consensus". With respect to the ILL links at issue the closer noted that "This close does not explicitly prohibit these links". Am I now free to deploy the links in uses such as User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Twelve Chairs and User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/2010-2019VSFashion Show?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * TonyTheTiger, I'll try to summarize my closing summary. It was evenly split, and ILL may well be the future. However trying to apply them now would be a bad idea. They are likely to be reverted, and anyone reverting them pretty much has the stronger position. Discussing the issue with people on "the other side" is encouraged. That may develop the discussion and arguments for or against. Maybe people can be persuaded or find some compromise. That might be followed by a Village Pump discussion trying to resolve it. (Note: Don't jump directly to Village Pump, the community likes to have some time for things to process and settle after an RFC.) On Wikipedia, patients is a virtue. Things may go your way, but it could take a while. Alsee (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , you say they are "likely to be reverted", but the stronger case is based on the general interwiki which was closed with 3/4 opposed. However, this specific case of foreign language WPs (a clearly defined special small subset of all general interwikis), it was an "evenly split" response as you say. This RFC is the discussion with the other side and it was evenly split on this issue (not the broader one you note as the stronger case). These ILL links were in the live version of User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/2010-2019VSFashion Show for a long time until people started adhering to the changes at issue in this RFC. Since when do we not make change because it might be reverted.  Each editor is suppose to be WP:BOLD with asserting what they see as right.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * TonyTheTiger: "Each editor is suppose to be WP:BOLD with asserting what they see as right". No, there's a dangerous error in that sentence. Editors are encouraged to be bold in making improvements, and editors are expected to respect the community definition of "improvement" when they become aware of it. You are now aware that at least half do not consider this edit to be an improvement. (It's a majority opposed if the IP is included in the headcount.) The very first section of the wp:bold guideline is WP:CAREFUL / WP:RECKLESS. If you know half or more are opposed, it us un-careful bordering on reckless to invite a pointless editwar back and forth. To quote the final line of my close: The burden is upon those who deviate from a guideline to demonstrate a reasonable basis for expecting general support for that deviation. That means you're almost certainly going to be on the losing end of that dispute.
 * Maybe it will help if I put it this way. Right now you're looking to "win the edit". What you actually want is to "win the consensus". The current situation is that ILL is a very viable possibility, about 50% support. But at this moment things are stacked against you. At least 50% opposition, a guideline against it, and the "no consensus" expectation is to retain the pre-dispute situation. If you try to ram through your preferred version, not only will you almost certainly lose, it would almost certainly backfire and build up opposition. That can kill the idea permanently. The smart move is to be patient. Either continue discussing it with involved editors hoping to persuade or seeking some compromise, or just do general editing for a while. Later you can try again with a Village Pump discussion - that may get you a community position encouraging everyone to add these links. Alsee (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , what we have is an uncontested 2012 clarification of a guideline stating that external links are not to be included in templates. We had a consideration of an exception to the general rule for external links with the subset of external links known as interwiki links in a Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates/Archive_9 in which 3/4 of the discussants opposed an exception for interwikis. With that in mind we proposed an 2017 exception to that RFC with a smaller subset of interwiki links (foreign language WP links as presented in ILL uses) and have an even split (I am not going to count an IP) of discussants. I view deploying specific uses of ILLs more as testing the water than ramming it through. It could build up opposition or people could find such links useful when they are made available. I am apt to be WP:BOLD. I consider it WP:CAREFUL of me to have taken nearly 2 months to consider both sides.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the blue links but it would be better to acknowledge that there is opposition to the idea that red links should routinely be turned into interlanguage links where possible. How many navboxes are you planning to work on? If just the two in the OP, go for it and see what happens. If they are just the start, please contribute at another website unless you get consensus first. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there was any pre-RFC dispute going on. If you're just testing the already mentioned navboxes, if no one reverts it or you accept it being reverted, then presumably there there's no reason it would disruptively escalate. Tread very lightly, you're on the weak end of a no consensus. Alsee (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , does "I don't know if there was any pre-RFC dispute going on" mean you closed the RFC while WP:TLDRing the RFC? A link to the pre-RFC debate is in the first line of the RFC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * TonyTheTiger I did review everything linked from the RFC. I just double checked, I specifically did review that pre-RFC debate. I meant that there may have additional events I was unaware of, and to be frank the pre-RFC details weren't very memorable when I wrote that comment three days later. I was focused on evaluating for a close. The pre-RFC details didn't significantly alter evaluation of the obvious split and arguments within the RFC, so pre-RFC details weren't very memorable. Alsee (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My thinking is that I will test the ILL links in User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Twelve Chairs and two sets of templates that I actively follow. User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/2010-2019VSFashion Show is part of one set of tamplates. The other that I will test this in is Template:2010–19 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit and that set of templates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * N.B. I also restored the templates that sparked the discussion at User_talk:Robsinden/Archive_11 that led to the RFC (Template:White Fang and Template:The Sea-Wolf).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is an example of an utterly useless navigation template where there are hardly any English articles to navigate between but that is spruced up with external links: Template:Diplomatic missions in Portugal. The Banner talk 12:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , doesn't this comment belong down with the discussion between 12:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC) and 14:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC). It doesn't seem relevant here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I deliberately did put it here, as you seem to defend the position that external links in templates are always an improvement. This is an example where that is clearly not the case but results in a useless navigation template. The Banner talk 15:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , Since you seem to be unable to read, I will restate that your point here concurs with my point at 14:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC) that templates with fewer than 3 or 4 English WP bluelinks should be deleted at WP:TFD. Your point here seems to be about a template with zero English WP links. Since zero is less than 3 or 4, I suggest you read the aforementioned discussion which directly addresses the tempates with fewer than 3 or 4 English WP links. If my comment there is unclear maybe this post will help you understand.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * , FYI, your close notes that "The software treats interwiki links to be "external links"" However, this set of cross-wikis is sort of treated by the software to be an internal link. See de:Heinz Becker (Musikwissenschaftler).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , the RFC was contentious. Interpretation of what it means in terms of the administration of templates was touchy. Above, we resolved to put a small sample of templates out there in order to see how editors and readers reacted. Above, I agreed to limit the experimental set to the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit set, the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show set and the Twelve Chairs template that I had mocked up at User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Twelve Chairs. I actually forgot to do the Twelve chairs template and instead did the original templates that sparked the discussion Template:The Sea-Wolf and Template:White Fang.  I don't think User:Alsee's response above to go ahead with a trial was intended as a test of whether the original warring editors were still at odds after some 20+ discussants led to a no consensus. I think the point was for us to limit ourselves to a small set of samples and see what other editors do. There is really no way to get any observational data without leaving a small sample out there. I am going to revert your reversions, assuming you were unaware of the discussion here. Unless Alsee has an objection, I am going to go back to making the following versions live:,  ,  , ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  . Village_pump_(policy) was closed as premature. Without a small sample of templates out there, there will be nothing to talk about in a future discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Rob Sinden and TonyTheTiger:The RFC was a closely split no-consensus. It is very possible that interlanugage links could become accepted as the proper course of action, but that is not the situation today. In a no-consensus, to avoid unconstructive battling, the expectation is generally to peacefully default back to the prior state. In the discussion above, I advised Tony that trying to apply them now would be a bad idea. They are likely to be reverted, and anyone reverting them pretty much has the stronger position. Tony pressed for a limited-testing rationale. I said I don't know if there was any pre-RFC dispute going on. If you're just testing the already mentioned navboxes, if no one reverts it or you accept it being reverted, then presumably there there's no reason it would disruptively escalate. Tread very lightly, you're on the weak end of a no consensus.
 * Ok, so testing was tried, it reignited a pre-existing dispute, and was reverted within hours. If Rob wants to get on board with the limited test idea, okey-dokey. If not, then I suggest Tony accept my previous advice regarding informal unapproved test-projects. Specifically, that reverts of "test edits" be unopposed. Either of those two options would mean we have reached a peaceful resolution. Failing those two options, I advise that adding the disputed links again would be a bad idea . That could be viewed as unproductive, potentially disruptive, low-speed editwarring, unless there is a productive discussion establishing a good-faith basis satisfying:

The burden is upon those who deviate from a guideline to demonstrate a reasonable basis for expecting general support for that deviation.
 * Alsee (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. Tony, the RFC was not "closed as premature". The RFC was appropriately ripe for consideration. Participants were capable of engaging in reasonable and rational consideration of the issue, just like almost any other routine policy matter. The outcome merely happened to be split. Further discussion always may shift consensus in either direction. Alsee (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Struck, mixup between two RFCs. Alsee (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant the new RFC (March at Village Pump) was closed as a premature reevaluation of the old RFC (January at the guideline talk). You and I have both summoned User:Robsinden to comment here. I'll await his response, but surely after our initial warring and 20+ discussants coming to no consensus, we are probably still at odds. If as you suggest, we should reevaluate this in the future, we should post a few samples out there to gather data. If we put the above sample set out there and discuss this in a year, we will have something to talk about. The Victoria's Secret templates get a lot of attention in November and December, while the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit templates get the most attention in January and February. If we are going to post a sample to gather data on we should leave them out there until at least next march. We can then evaluate what happens. Among the things I would be looking for in such an experiment are 1.) Did it lead to any bluelinks that seem to be notable?, 2.) Did it lead to the production of articles that should have never been (and were deleted), 3.) Can we measure clickthroughs that suggest readers are finding useful information, 4.) Did it lead to edit warring (aside from the original 4 discussants &mdash; me, Robsinden, and  &mdash; who are probably all unmoved by the no consensus RFC, 5.) Did it lead to adoption by other editors who found it useful. There is no doubt that external links are disallowd in general. The special case of interwikis has strong opposition. The more refined special case of non-English Wikipedia links is a no consensus (11 users in favor and 10 users against, by my count although you count more opposed so maybe I counted wrong). Leaving a small sample experiment will give us some grounds for discussion in a year. I do agree not to war with third party editors. However, the people I was warring with in the first place are no more impartial than I. I don't agree to give them grounds to war without opposition. Anyways, much of the opposition was that 2.) and 4.) were likely to result. Let's put out a small sample and reconvene in a year.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * TonyTheTiger, WP:DROPTHESTICK. I told you not to jump to Village Pump, you went and got shut down for disrupting Village Pump. I repeatedly told you that your course of action was a "bad idea", repeatedly told you you're on the losing end here, repeatedly indicated that the burden was on you to demonstrate a reasonable basis for expecting general support for going against the guideline, I politely told you it could be viewed as unproductive, potentially disruptive, low-speed editwarring because you lacked any good faith basis for the edit. A.K.A. a bad faith edit. And more. You're not getting the polite message, and this is starting to get disruptive of my time. You just declared an intent to edit war with those whom you were previously edit warring: I do agree not to war with third party editors. However, the people I was warring with in the first place are no more impartial than I. I don't agree to give them grounds to war without opposition. If you re-instate your edit at this point, Rob or anyone else has a solid case for dragging you to a dramaboard for explicitly editwarring, and knowingly doing so with a bad-faith edit. Most likely you will get a firm warning to knock it off. It is unlikely but possible that an admin will decide you've been abundantly cautioned already, and that this entire pattern warrants a brief swat with a ClueBlock. I'm sorry for dropping this like a ton of bricks, but you're a valuable editor doing a lot of great work, and I really don't want you walking this onto a dramaboard.
 * My advice: It would be a bad idea.
 * And I'm starting to feel like a psychic for somehow knowing I needed to spend 94% of my close providing a "don't edit war" analysis. Alsee (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * How about we limit the number of links to non-English Wikipedia pages per template, to maybe two to four on small and medium templates to as many as five to seven on much larger templates (some templates of painters would be a good place for the larger number). Limiting the number to three is still my proposal for adding sister-projects links to the "below" section on templates, and many will need just two, "Wikiquotes" and "Wikisource" (which I would add, back in the day, as "Wikisource texts" for reader clarity). Since this present discussion closed as no consensus, a reasonable consensus might be to limit the number of non-English Wikipedia links. It's still Wikipedia, per "no site is an island" or "it takes a Village" or somewhere in-between. Randy Kryn 22:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , I am sorry, but general interwikis have no support, so you are not helping dragging them back in. 75% were against them in that RFC. By my count, we have 11 out of 21 supporting (although the closer counts more opposes) the small subset of interwikis at issue (non-English WPs). If you want to make this a discussion about a more general subject that 75% oppose we are going to go nowhere.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read my post again, it wasn't about the addition of sister-project links, those were used as an example because that flawed RfC (which I did not put up) did not set a limit on how many links would be allowed. This one should. No template should be burdened with an overlisting of red links to non-English Wikipedias, but the idea is a good one as long as it is limited. Please comment on that aspect, thanks. Randy Kryn 12:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A limit is an arbitrary number. What do you mean by burden? Is there a number that will break the system's back? Is there a number that will cause browsers to crash? I think the normal WP:TFD standards should apply to templates. Redlinks are sort of allowed on a case-by-case basis although discouraged. Each template should have a minimum number of English WP bluelinks. I think the standard minimum is 3 although I shy away from templates with less than 4 blue links. Depending on the number of blue links, I think templates should be limited to some percentage. Maybe at least a third of the links need to exist (not be redlinked or unlinked). I don't think TFD has a standard percentage. That minimum is not really subject matter for this discussion though. That is a TFD issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , first I do thank you for all the time you have given to attempting to clarify your close and give guidance to the ongoing administration of templates in the wake of the close. Recall your close said "perhaps bringing this to Village Pump can break the deadlock." Now, your 22:33, 17 March 2017 comment says "I told you not to jump to Village Pump". Now, that I look above I see that your 01:48, 9 March 2017 directive on Village pump was "Don't jump directly to Village Pump". I had forgotten this by the time I had noticed pushback from Robsinden. I think I had been looking at the close that said to go there to break the deadlock and not above which said don't go there right away when I opened the VP discussion. Getting shut down at VP this early was just a bad decision by me. Let's be clear we are talking about three levels of external links. There are general external links, there is a subset known as interwikis and there is a subset of interwikis known as non-English WPs. The RFC that you closed was only about the third level as an exception to the other two levels and not in any way an attempt to seek support for general external links or general interwikis. Your close begins with "at least as much opposition as support" and ends with "at least as much support for removing these links as there is for adding them". It is nitpicking to point out that it was 11-10 in my favor by my count, but your statement does not ring true by describing it as if there was a majority against (since we have never counted IPs in debates). That aside, lets just call it an even split since 11-10 is so close. Heck even 7 or 8 opposes out of 21 can be regarded as a no consensus. Getting back to the actual issue, I beg your patience once more. As I reread your close, I do not think you are saying that my proposed exception to the two more general cases has more opposes. I think what you are saying is that you closed the discussion of the exception by pointing out that the more general cases have a lot of opposition. Am I reading this correctly?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * TonyTheTiger, thank you for the positive comment. I'm glad my last post didn't turn things sour between us.
 * Regarding link types: The RFC intro was clear on the issue, with the helpful link to the sister-project RFC for context and contrast. Participants were also clearly arguing the distinction. The core point of this RFC was to distinguish Interlanguage links from sister-project links, exactly because language links was a better supported, much more viable case. That was the exact point I identified for analysis.
 * Regarding the different counts you and I obtained: Running down the page counting bolded-votes often misses critical details. For non-obvious RFCs I use a text file. I carefully pull out every name I find, to tie together multiple posts by anyone, and to track noteworthy details. I suspect we got different counts due to Moxy. They did not cast an explicit bolded !vote. However they did significantly participate and they presented significant information. I grouped their name in the negatives-information collection. I judged them to have a soft personal oppose. However what was more significant were their assertions about they believed the community at large expected this to be handled, based upon their general policy work and their work on this policy specifically. That is merely their opinion, but that view was reasonable enough to include in the mix alongside everyone else's.
 * In case this wasn't about Moxy, here's the negatives set I had: Frietjes, The Banner, Moxy, PBS, MilborneOne, Walter Görlitz, izno, Plastikspork, Rob Sinden, IP 2605:8D80..., boghog, older ≠ wiser. Dropping the IP yields 11 negatives, and we agree 11 in the positives set.
 * Regarding the IP: This one spoke knowledgeably, avoiding a major reason for discounting an IP. A lot of the context here made me sufficiently confident that it wasn't an attempt to multi-vote, avoiding a second major reason for discounting an IP. So I was leaning towards AGF: IPs are people and people can participate by IP. However while writing this, I got sucked into investigating the IP deeply with my Übergeek skillz. (Grin.) I am now fully satisfied that it was a new person, not a multi-vote. However one for that reason is that I tracked down many other edits I believe were made by this person. It led me to a specific account name which I believe is the IP. That account had been permanently blocked. I do not consider perma-blocked users to be good faith representatives of community judgement. That is the third main reason for discounting IPs, and it kills this IP's value towards raw count. Nonetheless, they did still add a subtly novel angle on the Notability argument. (Presenting a novel argument was one reason it didn't look like a multi-vote.) Other Notability opposes basically suggested the links were good faith junk, or argued they would be hard to clean up. The IP basically says Notability policies wouldn't even apply, and I see "bypass policy" as suggesting deliberate policy bypass. I can post a hoax, or an article on myself, over at a microwiki. Then I could shove the hoax/myself into a NAV box here, apparently justified by the ILL. It's interesting that the likely-abusive IP was the only person to introduce a bad-faith angle. It's a small detail in the overall case, but it was a novel contribution. It helped expand/explain other !voters who cited Notability. Alsee (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , Whether it is 11-10, 11-11 or 11-12, it is no consensus since both sides were making substantive points. I am usually not very interested in debating and quickly revert to sarcasm. I don't know why I opted not to use sarcasm. I had a lot of good sarcasm that I was considering. However, I am trying to get the best understanding of what to take away from this. Clearly, the four original warring parties and discussants remain at odds with a 20+ person discussion. The question is what is best for WP going forward not what will make the 4 original discussants most happy. There is no consensus on whether we should or should not allow WP to have ILL links; whether they are good for the encyclopedia and its readers or not. Yes, you told me not to go to VP to soon, but I was in a very emotional state at the sight of seeing one of the original discussants revert me without participating here or anywhere about what is the right takeaway and directive for future administration. I jumped back to the original close remembering seeing something about VP and just went there. I forgot you told me to wait. They are definitely right in that it would be a reopening of a freshly ended debate. My question is what would be different about the debate in a year.  If you look at my creations page, you will see that I have created hundreds of templates and have an editorial interest in several hundreds of other ones. E.g., I have created the templates for 21 of Shakespeare's plays, but I am also interested in the other 17 plays. Similarly, I have created the templates for 9 of Dickens' novels, but am interested in the other 5 that have such templates. I am not hoping to run around and start adding ILL to the hundreds, if not thousands of templates that I am actively involved in. Yes, if I put links in templates Rob Sinden will delete them. We will go back and forth likely until intervention is necessary. I am not so sure your projection of the intervention is so accurate, but I realize, we are still vehemently opposed. I imagine that anyone with experience at closing contested debates necessitated by warring realizes that following a no consensus, the warring parties are apt to get back at it. So your realization that warring was imminent was wellfounded. We are administering an encyclopedia that we are attempting to improve as we learn. As I have stated above, if we could put a sample out there to get data from, there would be something substantive to discuss in a year or two. When I asked if I could put a sample out there, I expected Rob Sinden to want to revert them. However, I expected some administrative support saying something like you two need to leave each other alone on this issue. Having a sample of less than 10 templates may not even get us any data. I had asked for 2 sets (which turned out to be 3 templates each) and 1 other template. I realized a few days later, I should have also included the original 2 templates of the controversy and noted that here. Basically, I think we need almost a full year of experimental display for the set I propose before we can really hope to notice reaction to them. Then, I think it might take another period of time to monitor the reaction. If there were a bunch of other people saying these experimental samples should be reverted, I would be more willing to conceed. However, saying yes you can experiment but if Rob Sinden reverts then it is over is basically like saying no you can't experiment. I am not so confident that there is a stronger position that came out of the no consensus. There won't be much to discuss in the future without a sample, IMO. Giving RobSinden carteblanche to delete is ensuring they will be deleted. The purpose of the sample is to benefit the encyclopedia. Given your cogent explanation of the count, you could help me out a bit by explaining why you feel one position is stronger than the other in the no consensus result. I am still apt to pursue some sort of sampling status quo, but further is necessary.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * TonyTheTiger, The question is what is best for WP going forward. That's a excellent point of view to apply. In the longer view, the ILL can be reconsidered later. In the short term the community needs to prevent fruitless warring, so that everyone can get back to work. "No consensus" often needs some sort of default value. This leads right into your question: explaining why you feel one position is stronger than the other in the no consensus result. In most cases, the general rule is to default back to the pre-dispute situation. The policy is at Consensus#No_consensus. The second bullet point roughly applies: In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles [and policies, templates, etc], a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. The pre-dispute situation was a guideline, standing for at least five years, against external links in NAV templates. The pre-dispute situation was that NAV templates did not contain interlanguage links.
 * If we look at this in terms of adding an ILL exception to the guideline, the "no-consensus" result fails to add the exception.
 * If we look at this in terms of the pre-RFC template edits, adding ILL was the bold new edit. So the default is to go back to the pre-ILL version.
 * If we look at post RFC-edits, someone removing an ILL can cite the guideline as a good-faith reason for that edit.
 * If we look at post RFC-edits, someone adding ILL is going against the guideline. Going against a guideline is allowed, but that person has the burden of justifying it. They need to have a good-faith expectation that the community would support it. You did have that expectation when you first added ILL. However now you know half in the RFC consider it detrimental, now you have an expected default result, and you know violating that default would mean fruitless editwarring. You personally consider the edit beneficial, but a good-faith edit requires a belief that the community would approve of the edit. The community doesn't want fruitless warring, even if that means enforcing a semi-arbitrary default to prevent it.
 * You landed on the bad side of a no-consensus default. There's not much you can do right now that doesn't re-ignite fruitless warring (with you on the losing end). The testing idea only works if you can find some non-warring accommodation with the other side.... or if you attract some neutrals/moderates to support a consensus to test. That would prevent the other side from interfering/warring. Alsee (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , I now see why you say Moxy's edit was redundant. The guideline already covered all els and interwikis. No special language was necessary. As an aside, I don't think IPs or unbolded discussants should be weighed in. I think counting an unbolded discussant is like counting the vote of someone who shows up at the polling location to convince everyone what to consider when voting without ever voting. No matter how much he says to everyone, he never actually took the time to execute his vote. Regardless, lack of consensus still obtains regardless of which side has a one-vote edge.
 * P. S. ILL templates were actually stable in Template:2010-2019VSFashion Show from November 2014 until December 2016. In March 2015, there was a merger discussion that gave directive to merge 5 templates into ILL. At some point thereafter, the ILL template broke and looked funny in its deployment. In December 2016, removed ILL. I felt that they had been removed without explanation (and possibly due to either the post-merger template breakage or the unsupported March 2015 change to the guideline by Moxy) given his misleading edit summary.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Another attempt to bend things your way and again forum shopping. But the closure of the RFC did indeed no prohibit the use of external links like ILL in templates, but it did also not endorse it. Pushing them in would be a bit jumping the gun with all kinds of risky business. The Banner talk 09:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The Banner, Tony did just raise an interesting point. You may find my comment below interesting, in the context of Tony actively agreeing to a peace treaty on the subject.
 * TonyTheTiger, I didn't catch that a particular NAV box was stable with ILL for two years. If the dispute had been about specific NAV box I would have caught that and no-consensus would default back to that stable version. But this wasn't about a local page. The RFC was discussing the guideline and usage in general. The guideline defaults back to saying not to use them, leaving the advantage to removal. What I could possibly do... and I'd really rather not add pointless complexity here... would be to tell people not to mess with pre-2017 NAV ILLs for a while. And you agree not to add new ones. It would just stall "removal per guideline". I still suggest just leaving it be for now. Alsee (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , I don't know where else ILL was stable prior to the last 3 or 4 months. Is there a report that would show places were ILL broke after the mergers? Note that Template:White Fang had had non-English WP links since at least this Feb 2011 edit by and this September 2015 edit by  that I merely reformatted with ILL in this December 2016 edit so that they were not WP:EGGs. An IP had introduced ILL to Template:The Sea-Wolf with this December 2016 edit. Those were the two original templates that led to the whole tempest, that I belatedly added to my list just before Rob Sinden reverted everything. Basically, I'd still like a small sample to have something to discuss a year from now and still think the nine templates above is a good set to put out there. It is a lot easier to just go with them then to try to figure out all the things that were stable prior to the template breakage and subsequent squabbles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I know is the fact that something goes unnoticed, is not an endorsement. The Banner talk 15:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, it doesn't have to be a year. How about at least three months from today? That's five months from the first RFC opening. I don't think that will draw complaints, and if it does then they won't be taken seriously. That's sufficient, especially when the close suggested it. And there really isn't any point to trying to bring back links for some sort of "test". There's nothing you'll gather from it in three months that isn't already available in the existing history. Alsee (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know when between March 2015 and December 2016, the ILL templates were broken, but much of the edit history was limited by that breakage. My thinking about a year is that my proposed sampling employs features that were merged into ILL to enable multiple non-English WPs. If you want to have a short duration, then we should go from November-February. My thinking is that when the VSFS templates are active (November and December) and when the SISS templates are active (January and February) seeing multiple links would attract editors seeing entries like Gracie Carvalho,, Shu Pei, , , . That is when we could get information that we have never had.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * P.S., it looks like one of these has already had an English WP page created. I would like to believe it was in large part from the attention of all of these recent debates. I am not so sure it would survive a AFD, but I think all this attention contributed to the new page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's a WikiEd project. False positive. Primefac (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , how do you know this?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Their user page kinda gives it away. Primefac (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox request
Hello! I would like to know if anybody would be willing to take on the task of creating an infobox for use on articles about schools of philosophy? I think that useful information to know would be: who founded it and when; what field of philosophy does it fall into (i.e. metaphysics, ethics, etc.); major beliefs; schools that influenced it and schools influenced by it; prominent philosophers in the school; what era in philosophy it falls in to; major developers of the school. Thanks! RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 20:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

categorising article-space templates with no visible output
In the discussion at Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 31 it has become apparent that there is apparently no current category or similar that collates all the templates used in articles which don't produce any visible output - templates such as, , , etc.

Unless anyone knows of an existing solution or has a better idea, I propose to create a Category:Invisible templates (better name suggestions welcome) to collate them. I'm sure I will need help finding them all though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is probably a useful category. "Invisible" is ambiguous and seems informal for a category name. I might try "Templates with no visible output", but that is still not great. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Given no other input, I've gone with Category:Templates with no visible output. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please clarify the intended meaning of "no visible output". Is it for templates with no visible output in the location of the template? Categories are visible at the bottom (hidden categories require a setting at Special:Preferences). Top icons are visible at the top. Italic title and some others in Category:Correct title templates have visible effects on the displayed page name. NOTOC removes normally visible content. DEFAULTSORT has a visible effect on other pages. And what about templates which only produce whitespace? It's not visible by itself but it affects following content. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean templates that make no visible difference to the rendered page. Top icon templates produce an icon, and so are not inluded., categorisation templates and those in Category:Correct title templates also affect the page. Defaultsort and any others that do similar should be in this category. Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * All 18 "Template:Use ..." currently in the category produce a maintenance category which is visible on the rendered page for registered users who have enabled "Show hidden categories" at Special:Preferences. EngvarB adds Category:EngvarB. If the purpose of the category is to list templates which can safely be moved around on the page without changing anything then other things than visible output can be changed. For example, Anchor does not have visible output but the location affects users who click a link to the anchor. If there are multiple DEFAULTSORT on a page then only the last is used so their order matter. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, good point. The reason for the category is so that Yobot ( as owner) knows which templates render things so that it doesn't move hatnote templates relative to them only. I've noted in the RFA that Category:Correct title templates should be treated as invisible for the purposes of this task - whether it should be made a subcategory I'm not sure. Perhaps templates that do categorisation only should be in the category too ( needs to be in there for Yobot's task)? should never be at the top of the article, so it doesn't matter for this task but it's probably worth adding for the future. Thryduulf (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Another merger discussion at WT:SONGS
The merger proposal on infobox song and infobox album is discussed at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs", where I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

what links here problem
When I do a What Links here on Issik Qaghan or any page containing Template Göktürks I get everything in the template. The purpose of What Links Here is to find pages that say something about the base page. Things in the template usually say nothing about the base page, can be found from the template separately from What Links Here and make relevant pages hard to find. I often skip What Links Here rather than search 50 pages that are probably irrelevant. This make checking difficult and lowers the quality of our work. Would it be possible to make What Links Here point only to the template and not to the template contents? Benjamin Trovato (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , the short answer is "no". If a page Template Z has a link to page A, then every page that has {Z} will have [A]. There is no way to tell if a link on page B pointing to [A] is coming from B itself or {Z}, because the software only looks at what's being sent from the page itself. The only guaranteed way to remove all links to A from {Z} would be to remove [A] from Z entirely, let the pages refresh, and then check what links there.
 * I would be surprised if there isn't a phabricator ticket about this issue, but if not you're always welcome to create one. Primefac (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It has been discussed at WP:VPT but I can't find it at the moment. In short, the system is broken although technically correct as it is doing what was planned. I think the only answers were variations on "not our problem". Johnuniq (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * FTW: LOTS of VPT and Help Desk discussions.


 * Here are some phab tickets: (from 2005, declined);  (2005, open);  (2007, possible Summer of Code project). The other phab tickets I found that looked related were either duplicates or unrelated. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have expanded my list of requests since then:


 * Help talk:What links here
 * Help desk/Archives/2016 September 7
 * Village pump (technical)/Archive 147
 * Teahouse/Questions/Archive 328
 * Help desk/Archives/2015 March 25
 * Village pump (technical)/Archive 139
 * Village pump (technical)/Archive 132
 * Village pump (technical)/Archive 132
 * Village pump (technical)/Archive 131
 * Village pump (technical)/Archive 126
 * Village pump (technical)/Archive 122
 * Village pump (proposals)/Archive 104
 * Village pump (technical)/Archive 69
 * Help talk:What links here
 * Help desk/Archives/2009 June 20
 * Help desk/Archives/2012 May 9
 * Help desk/Archives/2011 January 18
 * Help desk/Archives/2008 February 25
 * Village pump (technical)/Archive S
 * T3392
 * T5241
 * I will add this thread and T14396 next time I post the list. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You guessed correctly. Under Village Pump (technical) #25 there is a list of previous suggestions going back to 2008.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Recovered from this diff. George Ho (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Overhauling the Disney franchise templates for consistency
There are several formatting descrepancies among the Disney franchise templates. I would like to overhaul the Disney franchise templates for consistency. There are two issues: inconsistent formatting and inconsistent naming.
 * N.B. I have notified talk pages at WikiProject Media franchises, WikiProject Disney and Categories, lists, and navigation templates about this discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * N.B. I have also notified editors with at least 5 edits to any of the templates below.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Issue 1: formatting
The main problem is the formatting. I have noticed four different types of formatting of Disney franchise templates when the Disney franchise is part of a larger multimedia franchise. Here is what I consider to be a fairly exhaustive list of the templates that I would like to come to a consensus on the preferred formatting for:
 * 1) Unified templates with Disney content separated:
 * 2) Template:Tarzan
 * 3) Template:The Jungle Book
 * 4) Unified templates with Disney content integrated:
 * 5) Template:The Hunchback of Notre Dame
 * 6) Template:Winnie-the-Pooh
 * 7) Template:Snow White
 * 8) Template:Pinocchio
 * 9) Template:Alice
 * 10) Template:Peter Pan
 * 11) Template:Sleeping Beauty
 * 12) Template:101 Dalmatians
 * 13) Embedded templates with Disney template transcluded:
 * 14) Template:The Little Mermaid with Template:Little Mermaid embedded via transclusion
 * 15) Dual templates with some overlap:
 * 16) Template:Frozen vs. Template:The Snow Queen
 * 17) Template:Tangled vs. Template:Rapunzel
 * 18) Template:Disney's Hercules vs. Template:Hercules media
 * 19) Template:Aladdin vs. Template:One Thousand and One Nights
 * 20) Template:Disney's Beauty and the Beast vs. Template:Beauty and the Beast
 * 21) Template:Disney's Cinderella vs. Template:Cinderella
 * 22) Template:Princess and the Frog vs. Template:The Frog Prince
 * I have been involved in creating many of these templates, but would like to rework the templates so that one format is consistent across all templates. Often times, when I came upon a subject, there was a pre-existing subject for just the Disney content that ignored the general content. Thus, I made a separate general template. Now, I see a big picture formatting issue. Do we want to continue to have Disney only templates? If so, should we make them consistently for all of the franchises? Alternatively, do we want all content integrated in its only presentation? If so do we want Disney content presented in its own section?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments
My own feeling is that "when the Disney franchise is part of a larger multimedia franchise" it is best to unify the Disney content with the template for the larger franchise, but with the Disney content separated, as in the first category under "formatting," above. While there are undoubtedly people who would prefer a guide to just the Disney content, the fact remains that the Disney material is secondary, not primary, therefore should, I think, be treated in a subsidiary fashion. BPK (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC) Please leave the Alice template alone. Disney is a small part of Carrolliana (there are many film adaptations), and revising our template to give prominence to Disney is something that I oppose, and would revert. -- Evertype·✆ 12:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't like the idea of creating special Disney subsections within these templates, as it gives them a special status. There have been a dozen feature films based on Peter Pan; Disney made two. Why should those two be separated out from the rest? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * any isolation of Peter Pan Disney content would include all the Tinker Bell films. So we are talking about at least a dozen links in the Disney franchise section. The question is how do we address all this content given that it currently being done 4 different ways.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That was just an example. Change the numbers and it's still a bad idea, privileging a single corporate raider of the public domain. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It wasn't my idea. It predates my involvement. I am just trying to figure out what we should do.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. It is not clear to me why we have Disney templates, but do not have Warner Brothers, MGM, etc. franchise templates. Nonetheless, many prior editors expended a lot of effort creatingn them. I am making sure that everyone has a chance to comment on the issue before there is a broad overhaul.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We have many franchise templates that are studio specific. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jason A. Quest. There's no reason to privilege Disney. -- Evertype·✆ 12:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was your idea, Tony. I just said it's a bad one. So is consistency solely for the sake of consistency. Not everything that a media giant chooses to co-opt becomes "Disney's ____". If they make an animated musical about Noah and his boatload of cute animal sidekicks, that doesn't mean we should add a Disney (sub)template to Book of Genesis. The current situation ain't broke. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Issue 2: naming
However, while we are looking at this we should consider the naming of the templates. A few of the franchises have templates with the word Disney's at the front: Template:Disney's Beauty and the Beast, Template:Disney's Cinderella, Template:Disney's Fantasia, Template:Disney's Hercules, Template:Disney's Mulan. One template has Template:Frozen. A recent move discussion considered whether to move locate a template at Template:Disney's Beauty and the Beast, Template:Beauty and the Beast (franchise) or Template:Beauty and the Beast (Disney). However, the vast majority of Disney templates do not include the name Disney (see the animated film franchise templates at List_of_Disney_theatrical_animated_features). Do we want to do anything about this issue?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments

 * do we maybe want to open up an RfC on it? i'm willing to do the technical side of things (i.e. page moves), if ya'll get a consensus. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 22:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Please set it up.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh. I misread it. I'll set up an RFC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * i could ahve/would have done it, except i was at school, taking a final. no worries. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 01:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Observe how this appears at Requests for comment/WikiProjects and collaborations (permalink) - remember that what gets copied by Legobot to the RfC listing pages is everything from the template (exclusive) to the next timestamp (inclusive), so all we're getting there is a note, and not the actual RfC problem. Please consider reorganising it a bit so that the note appears either before the  or after the introduction. You might also like to consider whether that long list should be in the opening statement, see also WP:RFC. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , I had tried to make a manual correction for this issue. Hopefully, the bot will work with the changes that I have made now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for explaining the code. The bot has corrected the transclusion as desired.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't know I had five edits to any of the templates. But whoa, the The Little Mermaid/Little Mermaid template is a mess, with the "original" franchise getting top-level groups and the Disney franchise simply being transcluded. They should (1) be merged completely with each of the mediums (e.g. film, TV), getting a top level group and the Disney and original franchises getting subgroups under these mediums. For all these other separated templates that overlap, I say we should just merge them, as in the unified templates with Disney content integrated. epicgenius (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't think there's a need for a consistent approach.  Tackle each on its own merit.  Some navboxes, like Tarzan are massive, and may benefit from a separate Disney navbox.  Others, like Princess and the Frog are small, and may benefit from being merged.  I've fixed The Little Mermaid as we should never be embedding navboxes in this way.  One thing is for sure, a lot of these are a mess!  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your changes to The Little Mermaid until there is a collective voice on how we should proceed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a separate technical issue. We either have a single navbox or two separate navboxes.  We should never be embedding in this way.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this your opinion or is there a policy that says so?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To embed navboxes within navboxes shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and function of a WP:NAVBOX --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Embedding navboxes allows for the use of the smaller template in some places and yet coordinates updating of that content in the larger template. Thus, if there is a valid reason to have separate Disney templates, that content will still be updated in the larger template. What purpose and functions are at issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Basically, for a navbox's navigation function to be correctly employed, The Little Mermaid should always be transcluded over Little Mermaid. There should be no instances of transclusions of Little Mermaid, as any articles which transclude only this navbox will miss out on pertinent links, such as Hans Christian Andersen,  and, oh, The Little Mermaid!!!  Therefore, Little Mermaid is redundant and should be correctly merged into The Little Mermaid, not embedded.  Alternatively, two separate navboxes are maintained, with a different set of links in each, so the missing pertinent links are included in the smaller navbox.   --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This makes sense in giving the reader more of a menu, and merging two templates, when appropriate, then adds additional information to each page the template appears upon. Randy Kryn 14:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

RM at Template talk:Overcite
I started the RM discussion at Template talk:Overcite, where I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Use of anchors in a navbox template?
Apologies if I'm in the wrong place but perhaps someone can help? Navbox templates have the function of auto bolding the text of the article that they are placed in. I tried recently to link to a section of an article with an anchor and also piped text as the subject in the navbox is not the main subject of the article. The result did not auto bold.

Is this possible or is it a limitation of the code, perhaps I am doing something wrong? Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    13:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's a limitation of the code. Personally, I think navboxes like Rolls-Royce aeroengines should point to the page directly linked, even if it's a pipe (i.e. I personally feel that this edit should not have happened, in the off chance the 178 gets its own article). However, you haven't actually "broken" anything, so it's not the end of the world. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, we have been discussing the obscure engine types and how to deal with them. They are so obscure that dedicated articles for them are very unlikely due to lack of sources. I like to see mention in the lead of the subject that brought the reader there but these types are so obscure that they don't usually make the lead. No easy answer unfortunately. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    15:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Bolding a Help:Self link is a feature of the MediaWiki software and not particular to navbox templates. As you notice, section links are not bolded by the feature (it doesn't matter whether it's piped). I think that is OK and should not be circumvented with code complications like . Users who know the details of the bolding feature will expect a bold link to not be a section link. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's what I was looking for. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    17:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Best practice for singles chronologies in musical artist navboxes
Input requested at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC on template format
There is an RFC regarding the format of link language. Please comment here. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it justifiable to use template in Wikiproject?
I am building a WikiProject and I have attached on the top of it. Nevertheless, a user claimed that the templates apply to "articles" only and Projects are not classified as a type of article, thereby, removing the template from the project. Soon after, another user nominated the project to be candidate articles for deletion, which really disturbs me.

I am looking forward to the assistance and reply. Thank you for your time in advance. =) -- It's gonna be awesome! # Talk♬ 13:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well first off,, I see no indication that you've created (or had deleted) a new WikiProject. Second, new page can be used on anything except userspace pages, so the user in question was incorrect. Primefac (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I created a project in respect of neuroscience on Chinese Wikipedia. I appreciate your clear and straight answer. Have a fabulous rest of your week! =) -- It's gonna be awesome! # Talk♬ 13:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This page is for the English Wikipedia. Your first post gave no indication it was about a foreign language Wikipedia. Primefac linked to the English new page. The Chinese version may be different. Each language make their own pages, templates and guidelines. We have no control over the Chinese Wikipedia. Please discuss issues at the wiki they are about. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, made an almost-identical request at Wikipedia talk:Template messages, contrary to WP:MULTI. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But if you wish to create a new WikiProject on the English Wikipedia, please follow the guidance at WP:COUNCIL/P. For Wikipedia, the equivalent is at zh:维基百科:专题. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the provided information. I forgot to remove it from the first place where I posted the same question when I decided to move on to this place where the discussions were much more active. Yep, since the guidlines in Chinese Wikipedia can be ambiguous sometimes making a certain amount of administrators on board have got various understanding on the same rule. That's the main reason I went all the way from there to here-- the origin of the templates-- for the sake of seeking clarification. Thanks for clarifying the confusion! I wish you a fabulous rest of your week! =)  -- It's gonna be awesome! # Talk♬  06:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:No source at RFD
This redirect is currently discussed at Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 30. --George Ho (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Implement Commons:Template:Imagestack in Wikipedia
Hi. Can we make Commons:Template:Imagestack functional in Wikipedia articles? I'd love to scroll through image stacks in my own pace, such as in Commons:Category:Brain MRI case 0230. In Wikipedia you currently need to use gifs for this kind of presentations, such as in Neuroimaging, but you have no chance to look at the visualized structures in detail because they relentlessly move on, and subsequently distract you when you want to move your eyes to other parts of the article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Help talk:Template
You are invited to join the discussion at Help talk:Template. Marchjuly (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed template rename from "Wikipedia how-to" to "Wikipedia help page"
FYI comments welcome Template_talk:Wikipedia_how-to NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of recent changes to the template
See Template talk:Sfn for a discussion of the merits of a recent change to the template. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Organize template incorrectly categorizing mainspace articles as cleanup templates
Use of organize section (Cleanup reorganize) seems to be categorizing mainspace articles that transclude it with the Category:Cleanup templates. Sample miscategorized articles: Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Frances Rollin Whipper
 * Téada
 * VH1 ILL-ustrated
 * Uncharted
 * I've fixed the template. The articles will disappear from the category when the job queue gets round to re-processing them. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fast work, thank you! Mathglot (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for a Category:Wikipedia stub templates by topic
Hi people. I have just proposed this category creation for stub categories (please refer to that thread in order to avoid reduplications). Best regards, --Fadesga (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Redirects within templates
Can template entries be redirects? At Template:Allegan County, Michigan, all but one of the unincorporated communities are redirects (and they all redirect to the townships listed elsewhere in the template). Is there some consensus about the use of redirects within a template? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, they are not redirects but piped links to broader articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My mistake. All the unincorporated communities are piped, and each community is also redirected to the township, such at Macatawa, Michigan.  I've never seen that done on a US county template.  Generally, when there is no article written about the unincorporated community, editors add either a redlink or the unlinked name of the community.  Magnolia677 (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, these are not redirects. All entries are piped. Since none of the articles about the communities exist (all are redirects such as ) there's effectively no difference between Burnips and Burnips. If someone clicks on the Burnips link and finds there is no article, they are welcome to usurp the redirect. Primefac (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Has there been some discussion about adding piped entries to a template in this way? Magnolia677 (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , what do you mean? There are piped entries everywhere on Wikipedia. As near as I can tell, piping links in that template doesn't break any of the EASTEREGG rules, given that the subjects are mentioned in the end article. Primefac (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Was asked by to chime in here. I actually prefer the redlinks to the piped links. When an entry is piped like that, it gives editors the impression that the article about that location exists, and might dissuade editors from working on a new article.   is precisely correct that if an editor clicks on the link and finds that the link takes him to a different target, then they can find out the article doesn't exist and at that point decide whether to work on a new article. I think the concept is covered in WP:EASTER, in that you have to click on the link to discover an article doesn't actually exist. I would recommend creating redlinks. The fact that the original name in the bluelink is mentioned in the target article does not appear to overcome Easter. In fact, the examples listed show that the link takes them to an article which does mention the topic (although not exactly in the manner in which these piped links are used in this instance). In fact, I got admonished by an admin for doing exactly that. Had something to do with creating an extra operation, thus slowing down (however microscopically) editing time.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 14:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the handful I checked are all redirects, so you'd be linking to a redirect anyway. Yes, I can agree that it would then allow for easier "oh this page doesn't exist yet" realization, but I'm saying we don't have a hard-and-fast "you are not allowed to pipe links in templates" rule. Primefac (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's true that this is a mostly Michigan issue. has also asked me to comment. My personal preference in this case is to keep the piped links, as the linked articles all clearly list the unincorporated places. I would prefer to see it that way than red links in a template, which I, for better or worse, would be inclined to delete. --Ken Gallager (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, section-divided navboxes should only have two types of links: to redlinks that are likely to get articles (e.g. Linn County, Missouri has links to townships that don't yet have articles) that would fit into that section, and links to extant articles that fit in that section. Unincorporated community in X Township isn't appropriate: if it doesn't deserve an article, it doesn't deserve to be linked in the template.  Nyttend (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A more experienced group of editors on this topic would be hard to find, and I appreciate your diverse opinions. As with many human endeavors, it was something beautiful that motivated my question here.  Magnolia677 (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Nyttend makes a good point, so in the interest of "should this be here?" I've converted the pipes to their main redirect page. End result is the same, but at least it lets us see what actually exists (which, at the moment, is only Pullman, Michigan). Primefac (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Either you disagree with me, or you misunderstand me :-) All links should be direct; see WP:BRINT, a provision that's routinely enforced by bots. And aside from redlinks, each link should go to an article about the "displayed" subject; if X Place is a redirect to Y Township, we shouldn't have a link to X Place at all.  Nyttend (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I took the two halves of your statement separately (and specifically, Unincorporated community in X Township isn't appropriate). So I guess to actually ask the question - do we need links to unincorporated communities in the Allegan template? Primefac (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In that template, I think we should have links to unincorporated communities that have their own articles and unincorporated communities that are redlinks, but not otherwise. Burnips, for example, shouldn't be mentioned at all, unless someone writes an article about it first.  Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * PS, to explain myself better: in my opinion, each name in a section should be linked to a separate article, and articles shouldn't be linked in multiple sections unless they really are multiple entities. Since we routinely distinguish between census-designated places and other communities (although I think Michigan doesn't generally do this), I'm not talking about those.  The only instance coming to mind is townships that get designated as CDPs in their entirety, so we should list them both in the townships line and the CDPs line, as is done at Whitley County, Indiana because the CDP of "Tri-Lakes" is identical to Thorncreek Township.  Since these communities aren't identical to their townships, the situation as described at the start of this article is problematic, and references to these communities should be removed.  Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think a relevant point here is that unincorporated communities in Michigan are documented differently than unincorporated communities in pretty much any other state; anywhere else, these communities would either have their own articles or still be red links. The logic for why Michigan is different is that as long as the separate articles would be stubs indefinitely, there's no reason to split them out of the township articles until someone wanted to write a longer article about them. (I don't entirely agree with that reasoning and have had discussions about this many years ago, which led to the consensus that Michigan would stay the way it was but we wouldn't do that for any of the other states.) I can't imagine the Michigan editors would want this to imply that communities in Michigan should be left out of the navbox, though.
 * inviting you to chime in, since I think you're the Michigan editor I discussed this with. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You describe the situation accurately. There's no good reason to treat Michigan localities differently, but unless we stop bowing to one person's ownership of the whole state, we should implement WP:RED's provisions by removing links to titles that aren't likely to get articles.  Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Input requested on warning templates
Input is requested on a discussion regarding creating new warning templates for anonymous and new editors who attempt to leave personal attacks on others' user pages. Funcrunch (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Template Issue
I created the Food Network Canada series template. Everything was going fine as I was adding items to template. If you see you see, it not showing in the former section 2010 debuts, but it is there when you edit it. I would appreciate any assistance rectifying this issue. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There were some unbalanced curly and square brackets. Seems OK now. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing it.  Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 11:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Help with Template:Infobox carom billiards player
Hi,

I translated the following from de:WP. I'd like to know, before I go on using it, if this is about the en:WP-Standard. Some things might to be checked or fixed. Thanks in advance for your help and hints. --Rafael Zink (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: The creator didn't know where to ask for help, so the template was unused for several months and landed at the Sept 15 Templates For Discussion. Alsee (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You should use the Infobox template instead of formatting a wikitable yourself. Copy an existing template, like Template:Infobox snooker player. I also recommend that you ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cue sports. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Years in football navboxes
Would be grateful for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. -- wooden superman  08:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

An issue of language
There is a discussion regarding language and semantics at the navbar template. Your input is requested. Primefac (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Guy's Grocery Games episodes
I made a template for "Guy's Grocery Games" which can be seen here. I didn't change the list of episodes over yet. But I am wondering if there a way to fix to production code section for it to to be populated with the code or N/A if it's not available. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , putting in a "default" option for a parameter is fairly straightforward. In this instance, it's, which will give the production code if ProdCode is given, and "N/A" if not. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't actually fix the problem. When I preview it, I populates it with "Template:ProdCode."   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's because you used the wrong number of brackets. is a template, whereas  is a param. Happens to me all the time. Primefac (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the all the help. That fixes it.  I was racking my brain.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion
There is a merger discussion regarding merging WP:TFD and WP:MFD. Your input is appreciated. Primefac (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox command structure
Can I get some help with fixing a display issue with Template:Infobox command structure? Parts of the infobox created by this template stretch outside of the infobox boundary (for example on 54th Division (Imperial Japanese Army) and United States Army Research, Development and Engineering Command). Alcherin (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems to be an issue with Military navigation and/or the module it calls. I don't know if the conversion to a module broke things, but it's definitely not infobox command structure that's causing the issues (I replaced it with the MV template and it still borked). Don't have time to dig into it at the moment, but I thought I'd mention it for followup. Pinging as the primary contributor to the module. Primefac (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed in 54th Division (Imperial Japanese Army). See "Shifted header wrapping" at Template:Military navigation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your efforts. Alcherin (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, the problem with using a navbox as a sidebar, links don't wrap by default. if you look at the bottom of Module:Military navigation you will see that I have added a hack to add "allow wrap" to the titles if they are longer than 15 characters and aren't already wrapped.  it's probably technically possible to do this for the list items, but it would add more string processing overhead.  Frietjes (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)