Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 September 28: Difference between revisions

Only 2 uses in articles. This used to be used widely in {{Infobox aircraft}} but support for |unit cost= was removed years ago. No need for a template to display this information. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Check completeness of transclusions and Template:Collapsible option to Template:Navbox documentation .
{{Navbox documentation}} contains information about both {{check completeness of transclusions}} and {{collapsible option}}. Proposing to merge the latter two into navdoc. 8rz (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check if there are any usages of either template not in Template:Navbox documentation which are valid? If so, then we can’t merge them into this. Also, please don’t use redirect names in nominations. Gonnym (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t checked because of such instances. I meant those templates that have the {{collapsible option}} but could be replaced with {{navbox documentation}}. I expanded the redirect with the parent template page. 8rz (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to the nominator: Do you mean that you want every navbox template page that uses one of the nominated templates to use {{Navbox documentation}} instead? If so, it might be better to have a discussion at one of the talk pages for the nominated templates instead of here, to find out if such a thing is feasible, or if there is a population of transclusions of one or both templates that is unsuited for a merge. Have you seen Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SdkbBot 4 and explored why that bot left about 101,000 transclusions of {{collapsible option}} without {{Navbox documentation}} behind? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I read the BRFA you provided, which was, to be fair, 2 years ago, so more templates could have been made in the meantime. I don’t know why the bot didn’t catch all instances at the time. And I do agree that not all instances of {{check completeness of transclusions}} and {{collapsible option}} with {{navbox documentation}} would be appropriate.

  instead? If so, it might be better to have a discussion at one of the talk pages for the nominated templates instead of here, to find out if such a thing is feasible. Instead at TFD where do you propose this discussion be moved to {{check completeness of transclusions}} or {{collapsible option}}‘s talk page? Or do we just pick one and leave a notice of a merger on the other template’s talk page? 8rz (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I think that would be a good place to start. Rather than a merge, I would propose deprecating the two templates on navbox pages in template space. If there is consensus, we could probably get a bot to replace most of the instances on navbox pages in template space. Then we could see what is left. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Chiming in as the bot operator. I think there is general consensus to replace instances of {{Collapsible option}} being used as a kind of standalone documentation with {{Navdoc}} — it’s a direct upgrade to have the green documentation background etc., and no one involved in these discussions has opposed it.

  However, the challenge comes from the fact that there was a lot of nonstandard usage of {{Collapsible option}}. We don’t want, for instance, to replace it with navdoc when there is also {{Check completeness of transclusions}} on the page, since that’d then result in the completeness check being shown twice. Given this constraint, I designed the initial bot run to be very conservative, replacing only instances where there was only {{Collapsible option}} apart from the template code and nothing else. Naturally, this left a bunch of stuff falling through the cracks, but it was a way to be safe starting off. The plan was to expand the query from there to convert more instances, but I ran out of time/interest, so never did much beyond the initial 39,000.

  If you or someone else would like to pick up from here, that’d be welcome. You could file a new BRFA and go from there. But just be careful that the find-and-replace query isn’t so wide that it starts doing unexpected things.

  Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 18:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t know my find-and-replace query parameters well enough to be requesting a BRFA any time soon. Not as tech-savvy as the rest of you. 8rz (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You don’t need to know how to run a bot to start the deprecation discussion that I recommended above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Which template talk page do you propose I start the discussion on? 8rz (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as not thought out well enough. {{Check completeness of transclusions}} is used at {{Music of Indonesia}} and about 30 other sidebar templates, where {{navbox documentation}} would not make sense. It is also used at {{NFL FirstPick footer}} and another 30 or so pages that do not appear to be standard navboxes. I am sure there are other transclusions that aren’t at navbox pages. And what is to be done about pages outside of Template space? I have no objection to a project to replace the above templates with {{navbox documentation}} where it is appropriate, but I do not think TFD is the place to start this work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the additional information, Jonesey95. I don’t search queries well enough. Didn’t cross my mind that out of template space pages could also use {{navbox documentation}}. 8rz (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Pinging @Gonnym@Jonesey95, just to notify you that I commented. 8rz (talk) 10:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Jonesey95. {{Navdoc}} is a wrapper around the other two, but there are times the other two are used independently, so a merge is not suitable. Sdkb ^talk 18:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Jonesey95. —Leyo 23:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions at WP:ADOPT are clear that people seeking adoption should not use this template, because adopters are not actively monitoring use of the template. At the same time, it has a lot of incoming links, including in welcome messages, and those links should continue to point people to adoption. I think a neat compromise would be archiving to the Wikipedia:Historical archive with a note saying that this should no longer be used and instructions to actually seek adoption. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:49, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]