Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 April 26

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Gostaresh Foulad F.C. squad}}

Gostaresh Foulad F.C. is a defunct club. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 22:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• Delete - defunct club does not need a 'current' squad template. GiantSnowman 22:03, 27 April 2023 (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).

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Troller}}

Only three articles linked. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 15:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

:I don't see the harm of keeping this, but can't say that it really serves a purpose either.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Delete Little use for navigation. Nigej (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• Delete, takes up space whilst too small to be useful. J947 † ^edits 09:30, 29 April 2023 (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).

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Early Ford cars}}
• {{Tfd links|Ford North America timeline 1946 to 1979}}
• {{Tfd links|Ford United States & Canada timeline 1980 to present}}
• {{Tfd links|Ford India timeline}}
• {{Tfd links|Ford trucks of the United States & Canada 1990 to present}}
• {{Tfd links|Ford full-size timeline}}
• {{Tfd links|Ford commercial trucks}}
• {{Tfd links|Ford early commercial trucks}}
• {{Tfd links|Early European Ford commercial vehicles}}
• {{Tfd links|Modern European Ford vehicles}}
• {{Tfd links|Early European Ford vehicles}}
• {{Tfd links|Early Ford trucks}}
• {{Tfd links|Ford China timeline}}
• {{Tfd links|Ford Australia timeline}}
• {{Tfd links|Ford Australia early timeline}}
• etc., see below

These are not what WP:NAVBOXes are for, this should be in an article. All the links are in the actual navbox {{tl|Ford vehicles}}. --woodensuperman 15:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

:Keep These are boxes which allow users to navigate these various Ford products, sliced and diced in different ways. This kind of information is completely unsuitable for article form and they are in use at thousands of articles.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Note other timeline navboxes such as {{tl|Oldsmobile timeline}} exist for other makes and models, so I'll presume that similar logic applies to all of them and that this should be construed as a discussion on all their existences. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

::From NAVBOX: {{tq|Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia.}}, which seems to describe these to a T.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Context the origin of this discussion was the discussion of {{tl|Canadian premiers, 1920s}}, a timeline template of Canadian premiers that (will likely) result in deletion since such content was argued to already be present in article space. Defenders of the template (including myself, its OP) used the example of automotive timelines such as these to defend its existence, which leads us to the question of the utility of timeline navboxes anyway. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Delete These timelines are basically article content. WP:NAVBOX says that a navbox is "grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia." Although these timelines do include links, they also include a large amount of other information (dates, colors, etc) which is entirely unreferenced in the navbox, making this style unsuitable for a navbox. {{tl|Ford full-size timeline}} contains a large amount of information which is not links. {{tl|Ford trucks of the United States & Canada 1990 to present}} has links repeated multiple times "Escape Escape Escape Escape". Nigej (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

::Comment The Escape links are not identical, but link to different generations of the same nameplate. Organizing the content on a timeline allows a user to navigate to the correct article in a way that is not offered by a mere list of links; from NAVBOX: {{tq|For presenting a series of articles in a chronological order, a template is often most appropriate}}. I know that I almost exclusively use these timelines to navigate automobile articles; the "standard" navboxes are considerably less useful. The unlinked content at {{tl|Ford full-size timeline}} appears to be in preference to providing redlinks; perhaps that particular entry would be better as some other kind of template. Regarding colors, please see MOS:NAVBOXCOLOUR: {{tq|Colors that are useful for identification and are appropriate, representative, and accessible may be used with discretion and common sense.}}  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

:::If the "Escape" links are different, they completely fail WP:EASTEREGG. The colors fail MOS:COLOR "Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method ..." The sole purpose of a navbox is to aid navigation between articles; all this extra cleverness is simply not suitable in a navbox. If it is required, then it's article content and templates should not generally contain article content. Put them in articles. Nigej (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

::::No, the fact that they are listed in separate boxes in sequence tells a user all they need to know. The sole purpose of these navboxes is to aid in navigation between articles; a user can tell the preceding and succeeding generations and also what other subcompacts (for instance) were offered simultaneously. A timeline template like {{tl|Ford Australia timeline}} is used across about ~60 pages - it is not an article, it's a navigation timeline. Do you suggest adding this navbox individually to each of these sixty articles or should it be a standalone article?  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

:::::The Ford Australia timeline should be in the Ford Australia article where it should be referenced correctly. There's no need to put this sort of article content into a template which is then included in ~60 different articles. Nigej (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

::::::Again, this is not an article, it is a navigation aid so that users can easily find related articles. That's why it is used across so many other articles and why it has been in use for 16 years. Just curious, what do you think about the contents of :Category:Graphical timeline templates? Does :Template:History of the Muisca also upset you? Is it that these timeline navboxes are preferably placed at the bottom of the page? What is the actual issue?  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

:::::::I didn't say I thought it was an article, I said that it should be part of one. The issue is that this is article content, and as I have noted above much of the content seems to be unreferenced or at least in an obscure place. The arguments for keeping seem to be a mixture of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nigej (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Keep The timeline navboxes offer a fast, concise way to see the years in production, generations, and where the model fits in the brand's lineup in any given year. The first two can be found in the article, but the latter cannot, and is usually out of scope for the (brand) vehicles navbox. Also, since the Ford timeline templates follow the format of just about every other car brand timeline template, you're really arguing for the deletion of dozens, if not hundreds, of these timelines. I would suggest taking the discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles first, where many editors specializing in car-related articles and templates can provide feedback, before doing a blanket AfD. --Vossanova ^o< 17:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

::I have brought notice of this discussion to that WikiProject. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

::Though in fairness, {{tq|you're really arguing for the deletion of dozens, if not hundreds, of these timelines}} is not a valid argument per WP:FAIT; a persistent error is still an error. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Keep - I make use of these timelines frequently and I'm glad they're available as a resource. Moonreach (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

:{{tq|a persistent error is still an error}} - for sure (nb, I don't in any way consider these to be in error), but these have been around for approaching twenty years. That means that they should not all be deleted because two or three users happen to feel something one day. Deleting them would be extremely disruptive as this is really the main way that one navigates automobile articles. I would like to call attention to the fact that none of the people who want to delete have suggested that these do not serve a purpose.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Keep - These timelines are very useful and are good resources for seeing the evolution of a car lineup. I don't know what I would do without them. 2008 Dodge Ram (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per the above arguments, but alternatively we could look into presenting this information in a different way.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 21:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. A navigation template is defined as "a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles," which is just what these timeline templates do. They serve as a quick way for readers to see where one particular model fits into both the size hierarchy and the chronology. These templates are beneficial to Wikipedia's readers and deleting them would be a disservice. I don't really see a compelling deletion rationale here. --Sable232 (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Keep per the above arguments. Andra Febrian (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Timeline of Ford Motor Company, Timeline of motor vehicle brands, Timeline of North American automobiles or something. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

:Keep - These are, and are only, literally, "a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles." If only the sort of information that makes these navboxes so very helpful to readers seeking to find the article about a particular related topic were included in every navbox. The Canadian Premiers navbox referred to above is another example of such a helpful navbox that completely complies with the quoted definition. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Keep - None of the places that others have said to move to can provide the same usefulness or functionality that the timelines provide. In short, those other locations do not serve the same purpose. These timelines make it easy to see at a glance how an automaker's vehicle lineup is laid out between models and segments, how it evolved over time (different generations of a particular model or a different model succeeding it or exiting the segment), and makes it easy to navigate to any model that you want to see more about. When there are colors, it simply provides context that a particular model has some connection to some other manufacturer or is limited to a specific market(s). Sometimes, seeing that could be the reason to go to that specific page to learn more about it. Sometimes the different colors are necessary to differentiate between 2 completely unrelated models of the same name that exist simultaneously under the same brand in the same segment. Taking away the timelines would only make navigating more difficult and would make things less useful overall. There is no reason to remove these timelines. --JustTheFacts33 (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• Keep - These have been around for years, and similar examples exist in other languages, indicating that they are useful to a broad range of people. I find them useful when looking at the range of models a marque has produced because they enable me to visualize when precisely when different models are introduced and discontinued, to see how the product offering evolved, and to navigate across a marque at a point in time to individual models to look at things like common engines or designers. The nominator does not seem to be volunteering to recreate that facility in a large series of articles before the templates are deleted, so their deletion would represent significant loss of functionality. --Thetrick (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Out of all of these templates, I would suggest deleting :Template:Ford full-size timeline. It doesn't really add much more than :Template:Ford_North_America_timeline_1946_to_1979 than some trim levels and convertibles. Maybe nominate it by itself later. --Vossanova ^o< 17:45, 3 May 2023 (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).

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 12:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Is subst|module=Module:}}

Pointless - Lua modules can use mw.isSubsting, which is cleaner than any module based on hacks, and templates can use {{tl|issubst}} which is sufficiently simple there is no need to implement it in Lua. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

:Question: could this WIP module still have use in formatting to determine substitution status? What I was aiming for was something that would be more compatible and less hacky. I agree we do not need hacky solutions but I don't think the correct way to implement substitution detection is to always use wiki text.

:In other words, if it just had one function and it returned the value from mw.isSubsting(), would this be better? Because I know transclusion and some parser functions can sometimes be expensive. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 02:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

:: {{tq|In other words, if it just had one function and it returned the value from mw.isSubsting(), would this be better?}} - What would be the point of that? Probably the overhead of calling Lua would be slower than the existing template takes. {{pb}} {{Tq|I don't think the correct way to implement substitution detection is to always use wiki text}} - why? It's worked fine that way for over a decade. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:05, 26 April 2023 (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).

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|The Pinball Arcade}}

This navbox is not really about the topic, it navigates between articles for various physical pinball machines that have been converted to a virtual platform. --woodensuperman 13:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per notability and historical significance. --KJRehberg (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Delete because the argument for keeping makes very little sense - navboxes are about navigation, not {{tq|notability and historical significance}} * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Delete As noted, the navbox contains a list of real pinball machines that have been converted to software. The parent article contains a list of these machines. While the individual articles mention the digital versions, the articles don't generally refer to each other. As such navigation is likely to be via the list in the parent article and not via this navbox. Nigej (talk) 05:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Delete Having a navbox suggests that it has an important connection to the tables using it, and I don't think it does. It's the same reason we don't see many other "X featured in Y" navboxes, e.g. for all the cars or tracks featured in Gran Turismo. A link from each "X" to the "Y" article, plus a list in the "Y" article, or categorization (which I see we don't even have for the game) will suffice. --Vossanova ^o< 17:33, 3 May 2023 (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).