Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log

< March 25	March 27 >

1 March 26

[edit] March 26

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete or merge. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WikiProjectBanners

ATTENTION!

Please read the rationale below prior to posting your comment, as this is in essence more of a merge proposal than a deletion. See below for details.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

I think it's finally time to tackle this issue head-on. We've put up with two broadly similar, subtly different, mutually incompatible wrapper templates for over a year now, plenty time enough for people to decide which they like better. The advantages of {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} over {{WikiProjectBanners}} are numerous:

WikiProjectBannerShell displays, by default, the names of the WikiProjects, which enables the templates to partially fulfil their role as advertising for the projects they represent. WikiProjectBanners does not allow this to happen.
WikiProjectBannerShell allows for project banners to be expanded individually, if a user wishes to view the full content of just one. WikiProject Banners does not include this functionality.

Comment. WikiProject Banners does include this functionality, it supports |nested=yes in the same manner as BannerShell. MrPrada (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If this feature, which is in fact obvious but which I knew nothing about, were employed consistently, then I would have no problem with WPB as it would be essentially a clone of WPBS. As this feature is consistently not employed, and any attempt to do so is likely to trigger an edit war, the two banners remain inescapably different. Happy‑melon 09:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Between 2000 or so articles (which I have employed both templates), I collapse them consistently. The example of both of them head to head is here. MrPrada (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
WikiProjectBanners incorporates a large and unnecessary amount of whitespace (or "coffeerollspace", if that makes any sense :D), while WikiProjectBannerShell is much more efficiently coded.
this edit demonstrates a trivial modification to WikiProjectBannerShell to incorporate the optional parameter (|collapsed=yes) which would render the default display virtually identical to the default display of WikiProjectBanners. This enables WikiProjectBannerShell to deal with the few instances where space is at such a premium that even displaying the project titles is too frivolous. WikiProjectBanners does not, and cannot, incorporate equivalent functionality. See User talk:Equazcion/sandbox7 for a comparison of the display modes of the two templates.

Just about every WikiProject banner in existence supports the nesting feature required by WikiProjectBannerShell, and there is a significant body of template coders who know how to implement the necessary fix to any banners which are not compliant. The nesting parameter is supported by default in {{WPBannerMeta}}. WikiProjectBannerShell has proven far more popular than its rival in this 'competition': Special:MostLinkedTemplates reveals that WikiProjectBannerShell is the 133rd-most-transcluded template on Wikipedia, with over 43,000 transclusions. WikiProjectBanners trails a distant 390th, with less than twelve thousand transclusions. It might seem that deleting this template would involve a monumental amount of work in retemplating talk pages, but I am sure I am not alone in admitting that, if given the freedom to do so, I would gladly spend an evening going through Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:WikiProjectBanners changing every one I could find, becuase I hate this template and I can't explain why. It is inferior to WikiProjectBannerShell in every way. It is the runner-up in a winner-takes-all contest. And it is time, I think, for us to decide whether or not to end the race. </melodrama> :D Happy‑melon 22:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The arguments raised in this template's previous TfD, which can be found here, may be relevant, but readers will realise that the argument was mainly between those who wanted some form of WikiProject banner encapsulation, and those who did not want the banners encapsulated at all. This TfD is not to argue this point, only to ask whether one banner encapsulation template is redundant to the other. Happy‑melon 09:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break 0

Delete, maybe - I hate it too. It's badly formatted, whether collapsed or expanded. I honestly don't think the work it would take to switch all its existing uses over to the other shell would really be worth it -- I rather think it should be switched to semi-protection to allow non-admins (such as myself) to improve the formatting. But if there are people willing to plow through talk pages to switch it over (maybe a bot could do it), then I'd be for deletion as well. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:00, 26 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep; 12,000 transclusions show how many editors prefer it, its intent is to minimize talk page clutter while the banner shell is available for those who want to see more information, and please don't encourage changing templates just because you may not prefer the brevity on talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- As stated, the other shell template now has a parameter to accomplish the same minimization. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:03, 26 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  - And one of the specific reasons for the two templates is that many WikiProjects and article talk pages specifically wanted the Projects to show, which is why we have two distinct options. Collapsing the BannerShell eliminates one of its main purposes, which was to show the Project information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    - So those talk pages can leave out the parameter. This still doesn't tell us why two separate templates are required. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:07, 26 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- 12,000 vs 43,000 for {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Likely because one of the (if not the?) largest WikiProjects (MilHist) uses the Shell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    - I'm not sure how this is relevant. As you've said here and elsewhere, the choice of which shell template to use is a page-by-page decision which is almost impossible to reverse once made. It's certainly not ordained by any particular WikiProject. And if such a prominent WikiProject uses WPBS, perhaps there's a reason for that. Happy‑melon 09:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
      - For example, like, maybe, it was designed by the MilHist coordinator? This is one powerful case of IDONTLIKEIT going here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep there are numerous pages that would need to change their talk pages, too much work for too less benefit. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break 0.5

Strong keep. If you want to avoid having two incompatible containers for wikiproject spam, then delete template:WikiProjectBannerShell and replace it with this. The purpose of this template is to contain the clutter (unlike the other one, which allows one line per project tag to show through), and it does it very well. And as Sandy said, it's used on 12,000 pages, which shows its utility. Raul654 (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, as to why the other template is used more often than this one, the answer is obvious - because we have a Wikiproject spambot that puts it everywhere. Raul654 (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

HOLD UP THERE! That's very uncalled for! SatyrBot is not and has never put WikiProjectBannerShell's on any article where it wasn't already. And calling it a Spambot is TOTALLY uncivil! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

SatyrBot exists, as far as I can tell, for the sole purpose of mass tagging talk pages with advertising for wikiprojects. The advertising's relevance to the tagged articles, most of the time, tenuous at best. The projects being advertised in this way almost never improve the articles so tagged. So - how is that not spamvertising? Raul654 (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, that's not SatyrBot's sole purpose. It also works for projects, creating to-do lists like this. I've had it working on converting {{Geobox}}es, and several other WikiProject related functions. Secondly, I totally object to the near WP:ATTACK-like comment of singling out my bot wrt project banners. There are about a dozen different bots that do the same thing - so why do I get singled out? And "Spam"? That's an overly harsh word and you know it. We're all trying to make a better encyclopedia - including me and my bot. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Project banners exist for posting in articles that are perceived as relevant to those projects. Blaming the bot, and especially calling it spam and advertising really isn't appropriate. If you have a problem with the project banner concept or with the bot, there are places to bring up that concern. It's irrelevant here. Your initial insinuation may have been relevant had it been true, but since the bot doesn't post the template under discussion, there is no point in continuing your complaints here. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:36, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not irrelevant. Talk page spamming by WikiProjects is exactly why we need a minimally sized banner that hides the whole mess. It is very relevant to exactly why we have two very different banners; some editors don't mind, others do. Depends on the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Sandy, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the suggestion here is not to eliminate the ability to collapse the shell. For the fifth time, that functionality would be implemented in the shell template. Kindly read and digest this statement as it's tiresome to repeat myself so much. Secondly, no, complaints about a bot posting project banners is not relevant at all in this discussion. Whether or not this template is deleted will have no effect on the bot or on project banners in general, and again, with the added parameter, the size of the template will still not change due to more banners added to pages. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:48, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

And I repeat. Some don't want it collapsed at all; that is the issue. They want WikiProject banners to show all the time, period, no choice. That is why we have two banners, for those who feel stongly in each direction. Some don't want them at all; some don't want them collapsed and want them to always show. Kindly read and digest this statement as it's tiresome to repeat myself so much :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps I misunderstood you. Are you suggesting that some users don't want any banner grouping template to be used at all? What would that have to do with this discussion? And what would complaining about the bot have to do with the discussion? Equazcion •✗/C • 02:00, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there were very strong feelings in both directions: those who wanted to minimize talk page clutter, and those who insisted that WikiProject banners must show the name of each Project, for WikiProject advertising and member recruiting. The two templates allow for either position, depending on editor preference. Collapsing the template takes us out of the frying pan into the fire, back to WikiProjects complaining that their banners are hidden. Bots = talk page spam for this discussion; featured articles for example get slammed with all kinds of Project templates, even though those Projects have never had (and probably will never have) a thing to do with the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

← Okay, let's address the grouping vs. no grouping issue first. This discussion determines whether or not the people who want the grouping will have two templates to choose from. If one is eliminated, the other will retain the functionality lost via the other's deletion. How does this affect the grouping vs. no grouping issue? The groupers will still be able to group and the non-groupers will still be able to non-group, no matter what the outcome here. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:12, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

No, we're beyond the grouping discussion. By providing an option that always shows the WikiProjects for those who want them, the no-groupers were accommodated. Now, if you do away with that, we're back to talk page clutter, and the other group will complain. Currently there is no problem. Deleting one, or collapsing the other, will bring back a problem that has already been solved. Why? Because someone declared IDONTLIKEIT, no good reason, likely unaware of the level of dicussion and compromise that resulted in two templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We're not talking about collapsing the other. We're talking about providing the option to collapse the other -- that would be instead of the option to use a different template that collapses. It would be the same choice, only via a parameter rather than a different template. In other words: no option is being eliminated. Both options will still exist if this template gets deleted. It's not necessarily IDONTLIKEIT, it's just a redundant template now. We're basically suggesting combining them, while keeping the option to use one format or the other. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:21, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't deny that WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That's not why I nominated it for deletion. The reasons why I nominated it for TfD are the same reasons why I don't like it, and are given in extensive detail at the top of this section. Happy‑melon 09:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break 1

Comment - If WikiProjectBannerShell contained a parameter to collapse completely by default, wouldn't that make it more functional than this template? I'd think that would satisfy everyone who thinks this template should be kept due to its usefulness. WikiProjectBannerShell can either hide everything or show everything. This one can only hide everything. I don't understand why two separate templates are needed if one can be changed to support both options. Can someone explain this to me? Equazcion •✗/C • 23:15, 26 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Many WikiProjects do not want it collapsed. We have two options for two reasons; some want brevity, others don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't suggest taking away the second option -- it would be available via a parameter (for the third time). Again, why two separate templates when one can do both? Equazcion •✗/C • 23:19, 26 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Keep in terms of utility, I use the template more than the shell. In addition, it's the least ugly looking of the two, and I'd rather not have all these extra parameters. It does what it does well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete. And Equazcion's idea would make having two be redundant. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it wasn't my idea. Happy-Melon already implemented the parameter but reverted himself due to a talk page request. I'm assuming that whether or not the parameter will be implemented again will depend on the outcome of this discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:42, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Doh - thanks :) My bad - HappyMelon's idea. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep I personally prefer {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, but I don't think keeping this template does any harm. In fact, there are some cases where I'd consider it preferable, such as especially cluttered talk headers. szyslak (t) 00:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete I perfer {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} because it atleast allows you to view the banners without fully expanding them, {{WikiProjectBanners}} does not. You have to click show and then the WP Banners come out at full size, thus enlarging the page again. How useful is that? _{El Greco}^(talk) 01:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I've had trouble using {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} on certain pages, and feel that this one does the job. Happyme22 (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I changed "oppose" to "keep" in the above comments, as that's the usual lingo in delete discussions, and the "oppose" vs. "delete" wording was confusing IMO. I hope everyone doesn't mind that, but if you do feel free to change it back. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:32, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for changing; it was my fault, as I was the first keep, and I used FAC terminology here, incorrectly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - If the other template can do the same thing his one does, why keep this one? All these reasons of "wahh, I like this one better!" is bullshit now, considering the other CAN DO THE SAME THING AS THIS ONE. Seriously, give your heads a shake. Howa0082 (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It has not been established that the Shell can or will work the same as the Banner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The shell can be used only on banners that support its particular layout (typically triggered by passing the "|nested=yes" parameter to each banner). WP:FCDW/March 24, 2008

The banner accommodates anything, is easier to install, and can be used on more than WikiProject templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject templates are all it should be used on; otherwise other templates would've been accommodated. They haven't been, because it's not proper to hide them. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:49, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you just keep pulling right out of your ass entirely irrelevant reasons to oppose this delete. The template, like Equazcion says, is not FOR other banners. It's just for WikiProject banners. Hence the name. The ability of the potentially-deleted template to contain everything ever has no bearing on this discussion, so I'm a little mystified as to why you think this ability matters, beyond wanting to keep your favorite template around. This is as asinine as the (still raging) debate over linebreaks vs. commas at WikiProject Music. If one template (regardless of whether you BELIEVE it cannot) is capable of mimicing the functionality of another simply by changing a parameter on the talkpage of choice, the redundant template should be eliminated once proof has been shown. It's that friggin' simple. Howa0082 (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a degree of miscommunication here, but some legitimate disagreement too. See User talk:SandyGeorgia for details. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:44, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break 2

Strong Keep the template is very useful, as it helps out the talk pages settings. Deleting it would make things worse. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 03:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- What settings are you referring to? I'm sort of baffled by this comment. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:55, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  - For example, you have this article that doesn't have the banner and makes the talk page more "messier". -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep, I have recently been switching from BannerShell because of the potential clutter it creates. The collapsed feature is intriguing, but at this time I would still keep both until one is materially better. MrPrada (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete - we have two templates that do the same thing here, and BannerShell is arguably better, for the reasons given by the nominator. We should therefore delete this one and use a bot to replace its instances with WikiProjectBannerShell. Terraxos (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - I prefer this one. I can remember the code needed and I prefer the outcome, which is clear and minimal. I'm not offended by the notion of having two solutions available for the same problem. It is, after all, a talk page banner message. MRSC • Talk 07:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Mergeish It would be nice to be able to keep the talk page, and maybe the edit history of the template itself (for context of the talk page, if necessary) in some way. We could use a bot to replace the tag (with the extra parameter, so there would be no visual change), and then redirect. I suggest this considering the large mount of discussions we had on the matter. -- Ned Scott 07:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep It is a useful template to prevent talk pages from becomming overcrowded with wiki-project templates. Yahel Guhan 07:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, i.e. Merge I agree that they're redundant having taken on board your point that code can be added to the other to allow it to be fully collapsed if desired. I think the fact that you have used a deletion rather than a merge proposal is going to make some people think differently. For example, the person above seems to have skipped everything after seeing the deletion notice and just said 'don't delete', without even understanding the situation. Perhaps not, but that's certainly the way it seems to me. All such comments should be ignored if they show a lack of understanding of what is going on here. A merge might have been a better idea, but merge discussions on Wikipedia seldom go anywhere (and deletion notices appear everywhere the template is used - that's what got me here), so I can understand your choice. Richard001 (talk) 08:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good points all around, Richard. This is technically a merge, but I support the decision to nominate for deletion instead, for the reasons you stated. Also it should be noted that this wasn't really supposed to be a merge, as the nominator added the collapsed functionality to the other template before nominating this one; he just reverted it afterwards, due to a request by another user, for reasons which I now think were motivated by a lack of understanding about how the parameter is supposed to work. So this nomination was supposed to be after the fact that this template was already truly redundant, and combining the two wasn't supposed to be the discussed issue, but I suppose it now is. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:33, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not sure if this will ease or complicate the issue for people, hopefully the former, but I created User talk:Equazcion/sandbox7 as a visual aid to show the capabilities of both templates and show people exactly what we're arguing about. Note the demonstration of the "nested" parameter in the WikiProjectBanners template, which a comment above by User:MrPrada prompted me to include. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:04, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- That's really helpful, Equazcion. Happy‑melon 09:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep This template is used far too widely for it to be simply deleted. Having two templates that do similar things is not a bad thing. This template is too useful and too widespread to delete. It takes up less space than the alternative, so it is particularly useful on talk pages with a large number of Wikiproject banners - • The Giant Puffin • 10:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly "simply deleting" it without doing any cleanup would be extremely counterproductive. But there have been edit wars over these templates - I'm sure there are a lot of people willing to assist in any conversion process. The template would not be deleted until all instances of it had been converted to WikiProjectBannerShell. And the proposal is to incorporate (re-incorporate actually, since WPBS briefly had the functionality) a parameter into WPBS which enables it to almost perfectly mimic WPB's default appearance. Happy‑melon 10:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Samples of these recent edit wars please, and there will likely be more edit wars if the banners template is deleted, as editors seek to eliminate talk page spam and advertisement that can be placed in banners. Curious why you didn't raise your concerns and ideas on the template talk pages, so a reasoned approach addressing all issues could have been undertaken by the reasonable editors involved with these templates? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet another comment - Now that I see the "nested" capability this template has, I'm not sure there's really much difference between the two. We could allow a "collapsed=no" parameter for this, which if "nested" is used would make it look almost exactly like WikiProjectBannerShell's current default display. The issue now is purely whether or not there should be two separate templates. The issue of which one to keep and which to delete is nearly irrelevant, since with a few very minor code tweaks, each can be made to do what the other can -- in terms of display styles. The only actual persistent difference between the two is that one can group other templates besides project banners and the other can't. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:20, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- That's all very true. It's just that WPBS has, traditionally, been specified with the nested=yes parameter, while WPB has traditionally been specified without it. Unfortunately, given the code that's out there on talk pages, I don't think there's any way to merge the two templates without editing at least some of the instances, and any attempt to do so without a TfD decision would just trigger a massive edit war. As you say, the only real difference is that you can put anything in WPB; but is that really a good thing? Someone claimed somewhere that I "like clutter" - nothing could be further from the truth. I was amused to see that one of SandyGeorgia's examples of a cluttered page (Talk:Tenacious D) uses a banner I had rewritten specifically to reduce clutter (eg). This offends me with its level of clutter, but not nearly as much as the horrible colour-mismatching inside the collapse-box in this version. I'd say I want talk pages to be as "clean" as possible - not as empty as possible, but showing all the necessary information in as elegant and concise form as possible. If I'm not mistaken, I think you feel the same way. My biggest concern with WPB is that, because you can put anything inside it, people do put everything inside it: ArticleHistory simply doesn't belong there! With WPBS, because that's not possible, people won't do it :D. Happy‑melon 11:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep Removing this template from an article should be done on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the perspectives of the editors who work on that article, and what is best for that particular talk page. Standardization is not always a good thing. Z00r (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break 3

Keep. This template needs less faffing around than the other one, even if it has some rather undesirable features and can be misused. If you want just one template, best to come up with a cunning wheeze for merging the two: no "nested=yes" nonsense and no hiding non-project templates. Otherwise, leave things as they are. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is that to say that, if it were possible to change the code at {{WikiProjectBanners}} such that it displayed identically to {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, you would support such a change? Just for my own interest (since I doubt such a thing is possible, and that's not what this discussion is about). Happy‑melon 11:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  - It is exactly what it's about. Replacing one not-so-great template with another one which is no better is a waste of time. I'm not buying a pig in a poke: let's see the new and improved template that does everything, and does it as automagically as possible - no nested=yes, blp=yes, and whatever else I've forgotten - and then I'll be interested. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    - I've wondered if the need to explicitly specify the nested param manually could be eliminated while still displaying in nested form. I'm not sure how that would be done. I was thinking of this one crazy possibility, where we eliminate the separate project banners and replace them with one template, and you choose the projects based on parameters. I have a feeling that might be the only way to accomplish this using the current mediawiki capabilities. There's just no way for a "contained" template to "detect" that it's being grouped via a shell template, nor is there a way for the shell to change what's going on inside the templates it contains. So I don't see any other way. It's possible I'm wrong though, someone else with more template-writing experience might know something I don't. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:23, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)
      - I too have been racking my brains for a means to obviate the need for the nested parameter, but I can't think of one. I have not looked at the code for collapsible boxes in MediaWiki:Common.css - perhaps I should do so - but I doubt it will offer any enlightenment (especially since my CSS is weak at best!). A combined project banner would unfortunatley falter simply by the sheer number of WikiProject which would have to be accomodated. Merging the code for even the largest projects would create an almost unusable template. I have been supporting the use of {{WPBannerMeta}}, as this whole system would be much easier to maintain if we had a central place to make fundamental changes if necessary. Even if we found a solution to the nested issue, we would have to implement it on over a thousand project banners. The advantage of the current nesting system is that it is already in near-universal use. Happy‑melon 12:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    - (ec) WPBS is better than WPB, if not as much better as you would like it to be. I too would love to be able to just place banners in a shell without any further modification, with all the changes made automagically. Unfortunately, such a thing is simply not possible in the coding environment these pages inhabit, or if it is possible, it hasn't yet been realised. I can write a bot to autononmagically add |blp=yes to any page that needs it; it could similarly ensure that |nested=yes is applied as necessary. The features we've got in place now are a significant improvement in readability on the slapdash approach we had prior to these two templates; any further improvement would be greatly facilitated by having just one shell template, rather than two. Happy‑melon 12:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep I had thougth this was the preferred template at one time. I like its smaller size on a talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- But if a simple (and optional) modification to WPBS causes it to duplicate this smaller size, doesn't that make it redundant? Happy‑melon 13:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  - We're gonna get a lot of votes likes this, from people who didn't read anything above. I'm not sure if challenging every single one is a good thing. The closing admin will probably not give such votes much weight. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:01, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)
    - Indeed, I'm sure I'll very quickly get tired of responding to each one individually; might as well keep doing it while I still have the energy for it, though - if the only comment an editor reads is an explanation of why the argument he/she was about to make is not relevant, there's a slim chance they might think it through again. I'm surprised the notification on eleven thousand talk pages hasn't brought more responses like this, actually. Happy‑melon 14:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
      - Oh don't worry, I think it will :) It's only been up about 9 hours so far. Most of the world hasn't seen it yet. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:26, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break 3.5

Keep - Personally, I rather dislike this template relative to the other. However, I can see how in some cases it might be preferable, particularly for cases when an article has about 10 banners on it. Also, with it already being included in about 12000 pages, it would be rather a lot of work to replace it. I would myself favor one standardized template which could replace both, but, until that time, think we're better off with both. John Carter (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Although the rest of what you said still applies, you should know that if this is deleted, the proposal is to add a parameter to the other template to collapse it completely by default, which would take care of the "article with 10 banners" concern. (This is a recorded message. Press 1 to repeat, or * to hand up.) Equazcion •✗/C • 14:58, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Keep—oh, I can't believe this useful template could ever be deleted. Who proposed this? Tony (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Me, for the reasons explained above, which I do hope you've read. Happy‑melon 15:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep - Talk pages are for talking - not adverts for WikiProjects. The bannershell keeps visual distraction low, and is simply more tasteful than its clunky competitor. I think deleting this template will lead to much protest, and end of usage of banner shells all together. • Freechild'sup? 15:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I sincerely doubt that banner shells are ever going to leave us - they're simply too useful and effective. However, we clearly disagree as to which template is the more tasteful or efficient of the two. Happy‑melon 15:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete in favour of the shell thing. Listing Port (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep Ditto all the above Keeps. Seth Whales (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Are you sure you want to follow all the above keeps, even those that clearly don't have a clue what they're talking about :D ?? Joking aside, while there have been some good points raised above, there have also been some very bad ones - I'd appreciate your comments as to which you think are which. Happy‑melon 17:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Happy-melon, are you planning to badger every keep, while leaving every delete with no reasoning (like the one just above this) unchallenged? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    - Every keep which doesn't make sense to me, yes, which so far has been the majority. Naturally I need no clarifications for the delete votes, since I assume their reasoning follows my own. "Per nom" is perfectly acceptable in my opinion. Similarly, "per X", where "X" is a vote or voter which is sensible, is a perfectly acceptable keep vote, hence my response below. Happy‑melon 18:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
      - This displays an inability to recognize both sides of this discussion (the exact sort of compromise and collaboration which led to two templates). Also, your prejudicial "nutshell" summary at the top of this page should alone invalidate the TfD, since it presents the world as you see it (aka POV). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
        
        So edit it. I had several sets of second thoughts about whether to use the nutshell template, but I couldn't think of a better one. Perhaps {{info}} would have been better. Certainly I don't intend it to only present my point of view. If you have an argument which can be summed up in two sentences, and is being consistently misunderstood, feel free to add it to the summary. Happy‑melon 22:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    - I am happy to give you the reasons why...{{WikiProjectBanners}} I feel is much better for new editors to understand and use without further clarification, okay {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} could be adapted, but why not delete this one instead ??? Also, as Angus McLellan said "this template ({{WikiProjectBanners}}) needs less faffing around"...I agree. Seth Whales (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
      - OK thanks. I do agree with you that WPB is more straightforward, although not significantly; and I think we all wish to minimise the amount of "faffing around" involved in the process. Happy‑melon 18:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. If anything the other template should be deleted as it does nothing but decorate the boxes; this one is practical. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{I push my hand up to the sky} 18:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep reasons for both

The main template in question tidies the talk page by hiding the projects away totally
Although the other template clutters it still reduces the amount of space and shows a summary of which projects cover that article.

I would say people should have free reign over which they choose. Simply south (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge, in a very decisive but non-immediate manner. There are good efforts to streamline the {{Articlehistory}}. It'd be wonderful if similar efforts streamlined the wikiproject banners. Why do they all have individual class-ratings, that only occasionally diverge; surely that could be better managed? Obviously the importance-ratings will vary per project, but the class-rating should be fairly consistent, no?

It also would've been nice if preliminary discussion about these bannershells could have started at Wikipedia talk:Talk page templates, too... That is what talkpages are for. When this TfD is closed, perhaps someone could neutrally summarize any good points from here, over there.

~~Stable versions~~Article validation will have to be taken into account soon, too. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. See Wikipedia talk:Talk page templates#Small option as default? for a somewhat related idea. Talk:Albert Einstein utilizes small=yes rather well. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep Simply south has summed up exactly what I was going to say. I don't there's a pressing reason to say "must choose one or the other". 12 000 transclusions shows it's popular, even though the shell might be more popular; and when it's deleted, that's 12 000 talk pages to fix. I don't think editors should be forced to choose on this occasion, and I don't think it's worth the extra effort. PeterSymonds | talk 20:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly deleting it first and then cleaning up the mess would cause a lot of unnecessary hassle! A solution which standardised the templates without requiring edits to thousands of page would definitely be preferable. Happy‑melon 22:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break 4

Extremely strong keep Imaging how talk pages with over ten WikiProjects would be without this. And believe me, there are plenty of pages in over ten WikiProjects. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, they can use (|collapsed=yes) to make it do exactly what WPB does. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't care, it's still a better idea to nest all WikiProject templates at once. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete — With the optional parameter (|collapsed=yes), the WBPS template can do everything that WPB does and can do much more. There is no reason to have WPB around. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's a good argument for deleting WBPS and use this one for all of them - so that we eliminate 48,000 pages worth of wikiproject spamming. Raul654 (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Would you kindly stop using this discussion as a platform to voice your disapproval with project banners? That really has nothing to do with this. If you think there's a problem with the current practice of posting project banners, why don't you head over to WT:Wikiproject, where there's a chance your concerns would be properly addressed? Equazcion •✗/C • 07:18, 28 Mar 2008 (UTC)
    - It has been brought to their attention. In a turn of events that should surprise exactly no one, wikiproject proponents do not consider mass tagging article talk pages to be a problem, even if the tags are for barely-if-at-all relavant wikiprojects that have never improved an article. (In a similar vein, the national assocation of dairy farmers thinks you should drink more milk.) Raul654 (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      - Oh I see. Since you're pissed off at some decision none of us here were involved in, we must now endure your off-topic whining. Way to administrate. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:27, 28 Mar 2008 (UTC)
        
        That's a cute little rhetorical trick - complain that wikiproject proponents should be given a chance to clean up their act, then when you find out that they were given such a chance and didn't, complain that my comments are off topic. In the future, if you ask a question, don't complain that the response is off-topic. And while you're at it, rather than trying to undo this solution (which, unlike WPBS, actually fixes the problem), why don't you do something constructive like trying to find a better solution? Raul654 (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
        
        That your comments were off-topic has been my complaint all along. Notice "that has nothing to do with this" in my first response. I was just suggesting an alternate place that would be more appropriate for your comments. Whether or not you go there is not something I care about. I wasn't suggesting anything about wikiproject proponents. My comments were basically supposed to mean "If you're gonna do this, could you please go do it somewhere else?" Since you didn't pick up on the more polite version, now I've spelled it out. Please keep comments on-topic. If there is a deeper problem with wikiproject banners, this discussion does not aim to address it. We're just trying to decide if this one template should be deleted. Kindly respect that. Thank you. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:41, 29 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep Not all wikiproject templates have the nested feature. Burningclean _[speak] 00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Actually, all WikiProject banners in Category:WikiProject banners do have the nested feature. It's also built in to the default template that most projects start with. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

SUPER STRONG KEEP This banner has been around for a while and greatly helps to organize the articles quality and importance ratings. Limetolime ^{talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 01:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment Much as I thought, nobody is reading the discussion. It's a question of merging, not deleting, and virtually nobody here seems to have even the vaguest idea of what's going on, as evidenced by the constant need to keep reminding people what the issue is. I think this whole discussion has become a waste of time. Richard001 (talk) 06:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. People are assuming, perhaps for good reason, that they're here simply to chime in on whether or not banner groupings should be allowed. I guess this was never meant for TfD. Though I doubt it could be closed at this point, without giving it the full 5 days. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:06, 28 Mar 2008 (UTC)

No one's going to close this one early, I'm sure. We'll just have to trust that the closing admin will sift out all the irrelevant comments - if that were done, I think it's probably standing at "no consensus". Happy‑melon 09:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

How are you supposed to "sift out" the irrelevant comments? You can't tell who has a clue and who doesn't just by their vote. I'd say it's impossible to make anything of this, so must end up as 'no-consensus', which will be no different from closing this right now. Richard001 (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all tell who's been paying attention by their comments. If someone says "keep, cause this has been around for a while and it's useful for keeping talk pages clear of clutter", that means they came here and voted without reading anything. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:12, 29 Mar 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break 4.5

Delete/Merge in favor of {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. Unnecessary duplication here, and I think WPBS is better. Kelly ^hi! 11:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Wikiproject banners should be minimized at all times, hence this is the better template, as it doesn't allow for the Wikiproject spam tags to be visible by default. It's the shell one that should be deleted, as it allows the projects to be visible. Of course, I'm of the opinion that Wikiproject tags should be removed from all talk pages until/unless the project in question has improved the article, rather than just claiming its talk page so they can count it toward their article statistics. Wikiprojects are a great collaborative tool, but they seem to have become MMORPG-style clans racing to conquer the most articles (spambots tagging article talk pages for a project is evidence of this - why not only add the ones you are actually resourced to work on?). Neıl ☎ 11:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment quite a few users have said that they like certain ones better, and that this one is better or worse, surely that isn't on the verge of WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IHATEIT, which is a firm argument to avoid in deletion discussions? A few comments in the first section are firmly against this and should be discarded when an admin closes this deletion debate. And this discussion isn't heading anywhere, and it's more than likely going to end up "No Consensus, default Keep". Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to {{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes}}. --Qyd (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep, because there is some number (8, 10, 14, however high it may be) of projects that the vast majority of editors would agree shouldn't be all displayed. I'm not buying the claim that it is in fact possible to "use (|collapsed=yes) to make it do exactly what WPB does" until someone goes to Talk:Aristotle and manages to use BannerShell to achieve the same compactness we had in this version, which (see the page history) User:Gregbard has valiantly tried and failed to do in five edits yesterday before giving up with the summary "parameter doesn't seem to register." WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IHATEIT is beside the point when the proposal is to delete functionality that ordinary Wikipedians need and use, and, as in this example, simply can't achieve without WPB. Wareh (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- That would presumably be because the parameter isn't actually implemented on the live shell. ;-) Kirill 15:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- The |collapsed=yes functionality was removed from WPBS at User:SandyGeorgia's request, just before this TfD opened. For as long as I leave User:Happy-melon/sandbox5 alone, this version demonstrates the functionality. As you can see, it is almost identical to WPB. Happy‑melon 15:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment following on from above. Kirill's test at Talk:Aristotle is very interesting. Which is it, WPB or WPBS? Take a guess before you look at the wikitext - it's actually WPB. He is quite right: if the |nested=yes parameter is added to the banners inside WPB (and a minor code-change is made to WPB), then the resemblance to WPBS with |collapsed=yes is striking. If we could agree that this ought to be done to all instances of WPB, then there would be no absolute necessity to delete either template. Of course, since an edit to each talk page with WPB on it would have to be made anyway, there's no reason not to replace "{{WikiProjectBanners" with "{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes - that's not a difficult substitution to ask for, especially if we put it in the header of WPB: "please edit this page and replace X with Y". I bet almost all eleven thousand transclusions would be gone within a fortnight. With a minor code change to WPBS, that, plus adding |nested=yes to the banners, really is all it would take to convert from one to the other. Happy‑melon 15:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep Twelve thousand transclusions is nothing to sneeze at. I don't see the harm in having two similar templates. --Phirazo 17:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break 5

Extremely conditional delete I agree that having two templates that do the same thing is redundant, but the fact that it's being used in over 12000 articles is a problem. So, here's what I think should happen: 1) a bot should be established BEFORE deleting the Banner template that switches the code to the Shell template AND sets paramaters to mimic the Banner template aesthetics and functionality as closely as possible (ie the nested paramater). 2) Template:WikiProjectBanners (the page, not the actual template) be turned into a redirect to Template:WikiProjectBannerShell. 3) Plenty of warning is given on all template/talk pages and some sort of banner is put on the Baners page to warn against further use of the soon-to-be defunct template. 4) The Banners template is deleted ONLY AFTER the bot has finished it's job and the inclusion count is down to a reasonable number (I would guess less than a 100, since people might keep adding it for some time after the decision is made). If these conditions can be met, I would say the deletion would overall be beneficial, but without these (admittedly sizeable) steps, it would become a bloody mess. Drewcifer (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Something along the lines of what you suggest is standard procedure at both TfD and CfD. See WP:CFD/W, for instance. As you say, just deleting the template and invalidating twelve thousand template calls would cause completley unnecessary disruption. Happy‑melon 20:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is being proposed for deletion. The old template name would be a redirect. That's how merges work (this is a merge). Richard001 (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, nothing is being proposed for deletion. How dare these people assume that a "Templates for Deletion" discussion has anything to do with the deletion of a template. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:09, 29 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Keep I find the arguments to keep are compelling. Enigma ^message 20:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep per SandyGeorgia. Unless something has been developed to allow this to work the same as BannerShell, they should be kept separately. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I pity the admin who is forced to close this behemoth. To keep myself from the temptation of doing it, I'll voice my humble opinion. There are several arguments to avoid in play here, including WP:ILIKEIT and WP:NOHARM, on both sides. The use of this template in far less articles than the alternative is a strong incentive to delete (WPMILHIST uses it, and there's no reason to change that. Sandy noted that it could have simply been the whim of the founder(s), but it's such an enormous and politicized project that I very much doubt that), but 12,000 is still a large number. I agree with Happy-melon somewhat, but I see no reason to not leave it as a redirect. Does Template:Refs not redirect to Template:Reflist? The claims that it can't provide the same compactness are not serious; a template syntax wizard could clean this up quickly. Thus, I feel it's best to delete and redirect. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - succinct, compact, and useful. I think utility is a necessity with TfD. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Hiding the titles of the projects defeats the entire purpose of the project banners. And if one more comment is made about how this one can be made to behave like that one, I think I'll scream...if you have to retrain a template to behave like a different, existing one, why keep this one? Delete this one and redirect to the other.
Strong keep for the reasons so capably stated by SandyGeorgia (Talk). With the increasing emphasis on Project teams, it is not uncommon nowadays to see as many as 6-9 projects listed for an article. This template has value in organizing this info. in a logical fashion. Its primary purpose, after all, is not "advertising". JGHowes ^talk - 03:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep well, I think what people say above has pretty much covered it. Obvious one. - Gennarous (talk) 05:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge if possible - simply put I agree with the nom the template is superseded by {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} - there is no reason to have two different but very very very similar versions of the same template. Merge both and discuss the aesthetics on the talk page--Cailil ^talk 15:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete anything to do with WikiProject banners. -- Naerii 18:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to {{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes}} - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 19:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep i see no reason to delete it.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Due to the diversity in WikiProject templates, this situation is not one size fits all. Some WikiProjects are okay with having a collapse option in their banners, others are not. Users go both ways with hiding and showing by default, which is why both this template up for discussion and {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} exist. There is no set policy/guideline regarding this, and the last time I heard about any controversies of these templates resulted in keeping both as-is without changes to any talk pages that has one of these templates. I really don't see the need to talk about this when any proposals of merging these two templates will likely not have any consensus; keep. 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 23:59, 29 March 2008 (GMT)
Comment I'm relatively indifferent on Keep, Delete, or Merge. Whatever is done, the existing compact format of WikiProjectBanners should be maintained in any conversion. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Indifferent. If you really don't like it, just replace it. bibliomaniac 15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 03:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep reduces the clutter that arises when wikiprojects attempt to turn talk pages into long, tedious to navigate billboards advertising their various wikiprojects. Notice how all the other options, support cramming the name of the wikiproject in your face? Marcus Taylor (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep per Sandy, Raul, and Marcus. The only reason the other option is so prevalent is because some crazed, pro-wikiproject members have been mass-adding it to many articles. I know, I've dealt with several members who are doing this and decided to avoid arguing with them, as it's not worth my time. But, for people to act like the average non-wikiproject editor or even a reader wants to have to see and scroll through a bunch of ads before commenting on the talk page is ridiculous. I didn't even realize how bad it was until I went my parents house: I have a very high resolution computer which I need for work and which makes everything on the screen smaller, on my parents' normal computer the clutter was so large it was appalling. Aaron Bowen (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break 6

Keep, they are not redundant but each have their own merits. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete/merge as I don't see how WPBS with |collapsed=yes could not totally replace this. --fschoenm (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete/merge, for the reasons stated by the nominator. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete and convert all remaining pages to WPBS. It was created for a reason ... this way you have to open up the entire nest, and with a lot of projects that just makes the clutter worse when you do. I have converted numerous instances of this to the later template ... it's been deprecated for me for a long time. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's not deprecated, and saying so doesn't make it so. You should not be converting them. As for having to click to open up the nesting, the point is that most people do not want to see the nesting. It should not be visible by default, and those that do want to see it can take the extra time to click the "Show" button. Raul654 (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  - I said that as far as I was concerned, for my personal purpose while editing, it's deprecated. I saw no reason to use it once WPBS was perfected. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  - Saying it shouldn't be visible by default doesn't make it so either. Those that want to hide it can take the extra time to click the "Hide" button. And this is irrelevant since the proposal is to change WPBS so it can default to either one. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:17, 31 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Keep, per SandyGeorgia and Stifle. Speedy one please, the deletion notice is an unwelcome talk page eyesore. --HailFire (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete and replace — I believe the other option to be more aesthetically pleasing. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep and wonder what all of the fuss is about. Deleting it will only result in 12,000 pointless edits - Peripitus (Talk) 10:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what redirects are good for. No edits would be necessary... -- Quiddity (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That was not clear from the nom by the Joyful-Melon. Regardless I can't see the point. As this shows they are close to identical and all merging does is force a set of editors to add an option to get exactly what they have at the moment - seems as solution hunting for a problem - Peripitus (Talk) 23:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I love that "solution in search of a problem" rationale, otherwise known as "I see no problem here". Not every change must be a "solution" to fix a "problem". There is also a thing called "improvement". Some might say combining two redundant templates is an improvement. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:11, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Keep per SandyGeorgia. Rudget . 13:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - M ilks F 'avorite C ookie 19:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge because both are widely used. Deleting one of them would leave a LARGE amount of talk spaces with a deleted template. However, I`m new here but I`m not sure if they have the same syntax so we might have to make adjustments.Ilikepie2221 (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep I prefer the smaller footprint in most cases, especially when the talk page also has a {{talkheader}} and {{GAN}} and {{controversial}} and so forth. I've also had occasional problems with the other one. I originally was unaware of {{WPB}} and would have used it more frequently if I had known about it. I particularly appreciate the fact that it's quick to implement. You don't have to add both the template and also |nested=yes for every listed project. (For the record, I've assessed almost ten thousand articles in the last six months.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete and replace I'm convinced of the functionality of {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} over the other template. The display is better, and more acutely addresses the whole point of WikiProject banners in the first place. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep although I prefer {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, this is used on plenty of pages and I think it can be considered useful. jj137 (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep I am not sure why there has to be such a debate over this issue. I personally like the collapsable function and the neat appearance it gives to an otherwise messy talk page. Canyouhearmenow 02:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep Better and more functional than the other option. Neater, IMHO. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to/Merge with {{WPBS}}. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 09:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:PockKleanBotCleanup

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

These templates, intended to be placed on the talk pages of articles and on user talk pages, were created as part of a proposal (see here) to place notices on article and user talk pages whenever an article was tagged for cleanup. However, the proposal failed to gain consensus and was withdrawn by its author (the bot operator).

So that these deprecated templates are not mistakenly used by another editor, all transclusions (ca. 175) should be substed (after the TfD notice is removed, of course) and the templates deleted.

Delete both as nominator; especially {{PockKleanBotCleanup}} - placing a notice on the talk page of an article to the effect that a cleanup tag has been placed on the article itself is unnecessary, as anyone who monitors a talk page will also notice an edit to the article itself. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete after subst'ed (which the bot should have been doing in the first place, as is the norm with talk page message templates). -- Ned Scott 07:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:BAMracing

The result of the debate was keep Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

NASCAR teams need to have accomplished a major feat in order to get a template. This team has yet to win a race.. D-Day (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Learning towards keep unless this criteria was given some reasonable discussion first (Maybe in the NASCAR WikiProject?). Generally speaking, the criteria for a nav template is the number of pages related to that article series, not necessarily the accomplishments of the topic. -- Ned Scott 07:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep Teams usually have at least 3 articles, one on their driver, owner, and the team. Most have former drivers and related teams, some have other things like crew chiefs, etc. D-Day has started a discussion at WikiProject NASCAR (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_NASCAR#NAV_templates). I use these template a lot - it helps me with article building. Royalbroil 15:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Unattributed POV

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This orphaned template (I subst'ed the only transclusion at Talk:Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids‎) is essentially a shorthand way of producing the text introducing a POV that "{{{1}}}". However, in this regard, the template does not actually save time: specifying the template code requires almost as many characters as simply typing the phrase. Compare

{{Unattributed pov|}} (21 characters)

introducing a POV that (22 characters)

If we also consider that a template like this really should be subst'ed, typing the template actually requires more characters than simply typing the phrase. Even if the template name is shortened through a rename, I do not think it's a good precedent to create templates for every plausible phrase.

Delete as nom. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete – this seems to have been intended as a tracking system for unattributed POVs (the template included Category:Unattributed POV; see also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 26#Category:Unattributed POV). This system isn't necessary, per Black Falcon's rationale at the CFD, and the template should be deleted as well. Gracenotes^T § 02:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete – The failed experiment no longer has any use. J ɪ m p 01:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Infernal delete - really pointless. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 11:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WikiProject College Baseball

The result of the debate was delete

Template is orphaned and the WikiProject is inactive. — Κaiba 15:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Another template serving this purpose can be recreated should the project become active in the future. Gwguffey (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete WikiProject is inactive, per nom. Fall en An gel 16:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Normally I'd say keep, incase the project became active again, but this seems to be just a standard WikiProject banner message, and would be easy enough to recreate later on. -- Ned Scott 07:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Nothing notable about the template, and I can't say I would support keeping the remnants of a project, unless there's a good possibility that the project will be restarted soon. Can't say I see that here. Enigma ^message 20:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)