Knowledge:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 2

3514:. Bus routes and package names are systematic, and having these categories tells us about the relationship between the redirect and target in a way that is useful for maintaining them. If a bus route or package changes its name or naming scheme we will need to evaluate every item in that category. Middle Earth categories, like TV or comic book subcategorizations, are because the number of redirects we have in those areas are so huge, they would flood the general categories making them more difficult to use for maintenance. To illustrate, 2676:. (3) Having this redirect tag allows for easy tracking of redirects related to memes. As an editor who frequently contributes to Knowledge with redirects and content on meme, this category provides key information I can use to keep track of the topic. (4) It prevents the crowding of other meme related categories which give the false impression of more meme articles being in existence than there are in reality. (5) I don't see what can be gained from the category's deletion which would otherwise be solved with its continued existence. – 3105:. I can't see how aggregating them under "subtopics" improves things (e.g. WPNOTPAPER)? Not only do we have meme CATs (as we should for meme articles), but we also need to track the Redirects. Redirects are CHEAP, however, doesn't mean we should lump them into large unwieldy groupings like "subtopics" that will ultimately become meaningless (e.g. is a meme really a sub-topic of a subject in the sense that a reader searching for sub-topics would think). I am not convinced. 303: 2945: 3018: 3714:"keep." Even though the redirects are notionally in a hidden maintenance category, there are some editors and visitors alike (yours truly included) who are quite fond of all types of categories, including maintenance categories. I've learned about a number of Internet memes through this rcat categorization, and I'm assuming I am by no means unique in this regard. I would be fine with a 3239:, which default to retaining the rcat, but I see no benefit to relisting given the (a) relative strength of the "keep" arguments presented and (b) the parallel process initiated by TP on the best venue for such discussions. Going forward, I think there's also a strong case for a moratorium on nominating rcat templates until the community decides, through a 2080:, I no included the tfd notice which was the cause of the current issue. Replacement with nihongo will increase the post-expand include size, but I tested it and it won't be enough for it to hit the limit again. It's close to the limit but if required there are almost certainly some technical optimizations that can be made. ‑‑ 2274:) is not destined to grow to the same size as our regular category system, and thus we will not have, in the future, "R from Minnesota grocery store" or "R from pop artist backup dancer". Thus, the line must be drawn somewhere, and I don't think there is a functional reason to track which redirects are from 1111:

What you proposed in the nomination statement will not happen in a move. If the page is moved, the move will either require the deletion of the edit history at the move target, or the swapping of the edit histories of the pages ... both of which seem to not be the intended result of this nomination.

3528:

has a little over 100: not nearly enough to inundate the general categories nor justify a separate Rcat. The redirect categorization system should not grow to the size of our content categorization system as any content category fit for a redirect should go on the target article instead. Readers do

370:

Changes to simplify this could have been done instead of bringing it here. If you look at the template, the Acquisitions section can be removed (not all templates have this) and is covered in the article. The generic links can be removed, why is BellSouth Telecommunications not relevant to readers,

3668:

and the fact that 9(ish) editors have found their way to this discussion making it one of the most well attended TfDs in the last few days. If you're concerned that there is insufficient participation to determine consensus you can advertise this discussion like you would any other, but claiming a

2711:

be categorized in article categories, when the target is not already in that category, and the redirect otherwise belongs in the category if it were its own article. That's the reason we don't have a parallel system of redirect categories. Redirect categories are useful only for the general reason

440:

I completely understand that it's the same company, however a navbox isn't a link repository for everything semi-related to a topic, for that we have categories, or an overview article about the company assets. A naxbox on the other hand is used as tool for readers, that in essence replaces a "see

1947:

I obviously understand the issue. I'm trying to understand what Trappist's position regarding that issue is. Either checking for user errors is good or it isn't. If it's good, then I don't understand how it can be argued that this template should not be replaced with the version that checks.

422:, which is embedded as a child template in the WarnerMedia section of the AT&T template which it is part of — WarnerMedia is one of four divisions that make up AT&T. Also you don't need to use the AT&T template on this page, you can just use the Warner Bros. template individually 509:

service. If all of AT&T's plans for HBO Max pan out (one is including live sports from Tuner Sports as part of the service after launch) then HBO Max is going to have up to 4 templates (AT&T Communications, Warner Bros., WarnerMedia Entertainment and WarnerMedia News & Sports).

3771:

If you understand my argument to be that I don't expect additional articles to be added to this redirect category, then you have completely misunderstood me. I would ask you to reread the nomination statement. If you're still not following, let me know, and I will try to explain again.

4004:. From my experience, not all "r from meme" redirects fit the "r from subtopic" criteria in their own right, as they tend to lack the notability that a subtopic would have. As long as there is a distinguishable difference between the two, I would recommend keeping them separate. 3896: 500:

page along with its 4 affiliated channel pages would end up with an AT&T Communications and WarnerMedia templates! This is due to DirecTV originally owning part or all of these networks and AT&T then placing them under the purview of WarnerMedia News & Sports.

3564:, often with "redirect" to the parent transit system or municipality/local government jurisdiction article as the result, which thereby increases the number of categorized redirects. Internet memes have been around for a little over ten years, and 120+ transclusions is 2926:

Hmmm, that certainly a worthwhile alternative if this discussion is successful. I'm glad I can see what you're saying now, but I'm afraid my preferred option would still be the template for being more precise. What I mean to say is that, with the template, I can use

3642:

My argument about bus routes wasn't about the number of pages but the maintenance function of the templates; you confuse it with my point about redirects related to lord of the rings. While 120 transclusions may lead to keep votes for other templates, this is not

3081:

You know there is no actual significance in saying "strong keep" right? You could just as much say "Greatest Keep ever!" and it will just be a normal "keep". Also, XfD etiquette is one vote per editor. If you change your vote, you should strike the previous one.

1394:

as I'm afraid I'm not really understanding this template's purpose. It does seem under-utilized, so if this can be substituted and deleted, I'm fine with that. However, if TP or Pppery see it as being useful and worth keeping, I support and trust their analysis.

463:

But still, that article is in another template that is embedded in the AT&T template as a child template, are you suggesting the removal of these child templates? When you remove the acquisitions section and section links etc. this template becomes smaller.

274:). Additionally, from just looking at the links in the code, it links to many many sections of the same article, which isn't useful at all. The proposal is to split the article into the current sections, remove section links, redirects and generic links ( 3308:

and thus are simply redirects to another page. Either way, I don't suggest getting too worried about it. If the template gets deleted, then we'll just be in the same situation Knowledge was in for 18+ years of its existence (eg. without this template).

371:

that is known as AT&T Southeast? So doing these changes, the template should be good? WarnerMedia Entertainment and Warner Bros. are embedded as child templates and are part of WarnerMedia - I don't see anything wrong with these two.

555:. This template is huge. As a parent template it should only hold things relevant to the group as a whole. It should definitely be trimmed, with options including splitting to child templates, or even just using the category system. -- 3529:

not need to navigate redirects to articles; they need to navigate articles. Knowing whether the redirect is a meme or not isn't useful maintenance information and so I don't think this template (or category) should be kept. I am

2890:

contains 12 pages (including articles and redirects). 12 minus 3, of course, means that Category:Fun (band) songs contains 9 redirects. I chose a small category with lots of redirects so you can easily verify the results.

2883: 630:

A split really is not going to solve the issue at hand here. Also if the entertainment properties are split from their parent this TFD should be amended because what happens to the AT&T template will need to happen to

3894:

was orphaned from over 15,000 category pages before its deletion. Category:Women Buddhists in 2007, and Category:Buddhist women in 2010, contained at least a hundred if memory serves me. In a cursory search of

2046:, as that page was exceeding the "post-expand include size limit" discussed above. Depending on how this is closed, it may be possible to restore the section transclusions if desired. The page is a Knowledge 3651:

of templates, it is not a huge number and most of the transclusions were added by a single editor (the creator) within the last month.I disagree with your characterization of the nomination. The argument is

2939:

its recursive subcategories at the same time, you can't adjust the recursive levels (meaning if I want to search a category and its subcategories but not the subcategories' subcategories, I'm out of luck).

3660:. Their reasoning as to why this one should be deleted in pursuit of that is not that the nominator doesn't like it but, similar to me, the nominator does not see a useful maintenance role for this rcat: 3054:

above. Note that my !vote above is merely a !vote opposing deletion. Given the subsequent comments to this, I have now firmed up my position from just a mere "oppose deletion" to a "strong keep." Thanks.

2976:, Also, sorry about the wrong pronoun. I've got {{they}}, but haven't figured out how to get the similar templates for other parts of speech to work (i.e., "their," "them," etc.) with him/her, etc. 1821:

might have caused the articles listed above to exceed the post-expand include size limit (2 Mbytes). The extra spans ensure that the rendering is correct when used with definition-list markup (

3942:. The whole point of the rcats is to make it clear, looking quickly and while patrolling, how a redirect is classified and categorized. I don't see a rationale for redirecting, to be honest. 983: 3891: 965: 761: 635:. Really not fair to leave NBC Universal part of the Comcast template when the same practices that are employed on with the AT&T template are also employed with the Comcast template. 441:

also" section. You should ask yourself "is link "x" something that could appear in a see also section of this article?" If it's no, then it generally does not need to be in the template.

3120: 971: 2097:

Thanks, but this introduces another problem: People who are not already aware of this TfD will not notice it when they visit the pages it is used on. I don't have a good solution.

1835:

do indicate to me that the checks are necessary – without the template tells them that something is wrong, editors do not know that something is wrong. Did I answer your questions?

1335: 2941:

While getting the statistics would be more time-consuming under this method, at least you provided me with a path forward if the discussion doesn't go my way (which I appreciate)

95: 757: 704: 2768: 2072: 210:. Pare it down to the essentials as much as possible. If other templates (i.e. the default-hidden subboxes) need to be created/split off, there is no prejudice against that. 2018: 1894: 1847: 1794: 599: 585: 3890:

You may be interested to know that both TfD and CfD often decide to delete templates and categories, respectively, with hundreds of transclusions or members, respectively.

487: 473: 458: 435: 413: 380: 3114: 1526: 1150: 2827:

Thank you for that fix! As to you question, well.. in my experience search can be very finicky at times. Is there a way to reliably receive aggregate data with search? –

2359: 935: 838: 820: 2331: 1933:

tells the user that they haven't supplied any foreign text. This seems like a good test to me and is likely to cause less confusion for users using it in the future. ‑‑

1202: 912: 2129: 2115: 2089: 1175: 1075: 3161: 3132: 1957: 1942: 1512: 1483: 658: 622: 533: 3757: 3680: 3637: 3544: 2120:

That's definitely is an issue, but I'm not that concerned since its been up there for almost a month now. Interested parties have probably seen the notice by now. ‑‑

1127: 1106: 4025: 2314: 1221: 564: 3484:

I don't see how this is useful for maintaining redirects. Our most specific rcat templates are useful because they tend to specify systematic names. MJL brings up

2010: 1885:. If you add the spans and checks then you get "nihongo". So how are you arguing both that replacing isn't needed, but at the same time what is lacks is needed? -- 1839: 1733: 1471: 1005: 947: 773: 3963: 3908: 3885: 3810: 3781: 3284: 3091: 3076: 2712:

why a redirect was created, basically for statistical reasons, not for the specific subject matter. Hopefully that will change your view on the matter. Thanks. --

2624: 2610: 2573: 2416: 1583:

to remove the tfd notice and then previewed each of the articles with that edited version to get the post-expand include size. I then edited each article to use

1463: 1430: 1416: 675: 360: 346: 929: 802: 750: 3476: 1741: 3446: 3416: 3377: 3324: 3037: 2997: 2964: 2900: 2842: 2815: 2786: 2721: 2691: 2673: 2552: 2507: 959: 42: 37: 505:

would be in a similar situation because it started out as a DirecTV exclusive channel and will be rebranded into a preview channel for WarnerMedia's upcoming

3616:

I also don't think we should be, procedurally, allowing this rcat to be deleted while a procedural discussion on which deletion venue is best for the rcats.

3394: 3387: 2754: 3656:

that this category is unlikely to grow, rather, that the rcat system was not meant to serve the same function as the article content categorization system:

3350: 1691: 1675: 2447:

This isn't the place to discuss RCATs. We're essentially talking about deleting a category here, not a template. Generally, those conversations happen at

2240: 3994: 2217: 1491:, Thanks for your reply, and pinging the creator of the module. I'll maintain my neutral stance here as, like Pppery, it's outside my area of expertise. 1314: 613:

Too large for all links to be relevant to any one article. Steven's proposal seems sensible, but perhaps further simplification is justified as well. ‑‑

2296: 1555: 1291: 810: 785: 492:

If we were to split the template up in that manner then you are going to have some pages with multiple templates which is not any better. For example

219: 135: 1377: 1085: 1045: 1016: 998: 955: 767: 242: 866: 396:

because it isn't mentioned in that article, and neither is DU Universe in Bellsouth's article. If you'd taken the time to read the link I posted to

291: 112: 1020: 2660:. (1) That's a category meant for articles, and RCAT specifically says that we should avoid sorting things there. (2) The parent category for 2043: 703: 3860:

that. So, either we apply template criteria for deletion, or category criteria. In either case, I'm not certain how we get to anything

418:

But it's all part of the same company — AT&T is the company/parent template and the DC Universe (streaming service) page is in the

977: 3662:

I don't think there is a functional reason to track which redirects are from Internet memes more than from any other kind of subtopic

2651:

that these templates are basically their own type of category. I don't want to get hung up on process, so I'll just say my arguement.

2252: 3219:'s talkpage. With 111 transclusions, that is 111 redirects, from noteworthy Internet memes, that alone makes a very strong case for 2234: 923: 478:

What I'm suggesting is split per it sections of how the template is already set up. Start from there and then adjust per needed. --

1326: 2379:

is the nom proposing this? I actually like this as it adds a degree of usefulness, which is helpful for evaluating redirects at

3930:(which is far too broad, in my view, considering the narrower templates we already have), and those in favour of keeping. Even 1308: 1026:

There were some other discussion at the original location about the proper venue, which I've copied to this collapsed section:

21: 3976: 3607:" and that isn't expected to grow, for which no evidence is cited. Excluding your deletion rationale, the others were simply 3235:, in my view, the 'nays' have it despite the close nosecount. Nevertheless, there's a remote possibility this could close as 1537: 1184: 1157: 1088:. If you will check the templates, there are no any huge difference between the two. In fact, I actually copied it from here 254: 147: 3920:

here, there's no appetite for deletion here. It's basically split fairly evenly, with arguments in favour of redirecting to

2931:

to receive a complete list of items transcluding the template, and I can match against any other recursive category. While

236: 129: 3824:

Regarding Wugs' point that "120 transclusions may lead to keep votes for other templates" and that, in turn, "this is not

2355: 994: 919: 900: 867: 3706:

see both a functional and useful reason to categorize Internet memes—a growing phenomenon, particularly with regards to

3669:

discussion, started after and in response to this one, should stop us from discussing what to do here is filibustering.

3658:

I am assuming that the redirect category system is not destined to grow to the same size as our regular category system

3789:, Thanks for your reply. I've replied below by mistake. I meant to reply to this. Feel free to reply wherever is best. 17: 2163: 941: 666:. I don't find a large navbox to be problematic. Large companies are always going to have many associated articles. -- 262:

Proposing to split this template into different sections. A navbox is meant to link related articles and be small per

3508: 2484: 1747:

I don't really understand the value of the sizes in the context of how the template works. The template says that it

2050:. The action I took will almost certainly result in its de-listing if it cannot be un-done. I will put a note on 1659: 1249: 1015:

Template can be used for generic purpose, but the template name is league-specific. Please overwrite the existing

3515: 393: 267: 3560:

so it holds there would be more articles for bus routes. Moreover, lots of bus routes have also been deleted at

2798:

Concerning the relevant article category, that's my error. I have corrected the nomination paragraph to reflect

779: 177: 3498: 2474: 61: 3488: 3383:

Not to get too off track, that would be inappropriate as a template. However, if you would like to explore a

2661: 2464: 2109: 2066: 3462:; it's useful for navigation as normal categories aren't used much on redirects even though they should be. 4018: 3958: 3880: 3805: 3752: 3632: 3441: 3372: 3279: 3156: 3071: 2992: 2605: 2557:

That venue anomaly only applies to stub templates, not redirect templates. This is perfectly valid here at

2547: 2411: 1517:

Given that there was no complaints and the low amount of transclusions I am ready to fully support this. ‑‑

1507: 1458: 1411: 389: 341: 271: 2386: 2051: 2014: 1843: 1737: 3518:

has over 1000 pages in it alone, and counting pages in its subcategories puts the number close to 2000.

1421:

This sort of template is very far from my area of expertise, so I won't make any comment on its merits.

1092:. So as respect to the original editor, I want to keep his edit history–a reason why move is requested. 2246: 1627: 4044: 3692: 2887: 2669: 2271: 2228: 2184: 2154: 1320: 1270: 1240: 887: 857: 724: 694: 581: 469: 431: 376: 198: 168: 82: 3938:, but I'm not sure how this is helpful to the user who wants to see how the redirect is categorized 2735: 2668:. So an upmerge like that would most likely miscategorize a lot of redirects which really belong in 3924: 3722: 3197: 3110: 2750: 2264: 141: 2204:; there are valid reasons given on both sides, but in this case deleting the template should come 1781:, why don't we need them here? If I understood you correctly, then the malformed transclusions in 248: 3688:, Thanks, as always, for your response, and I appreciate you clarifying your point regarding the 2657: 2351: 2280: 2047: 1785:

are proof that there is need in the removed checks. If I missed something, please let me know. --

1302: 446: 279: 3736:

other suitable merger target, at the same level in the categorization hierarchy that would be.

3121:

Knowledge talk:Redirects for discussion#What should be the venue for discussing Rcat templates?

2764: 2704: 2327: 2278:

memes more than from any other kind of subtopic. These redirects can still be categorized with

2173:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below.

2039: 1708: 1259:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below.

876:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below.

835: 817: 713:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below.

275: 187:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below.

71:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below.

4039: