Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 1 March 3 >

March 2

[edit]


Template:Infobox European Union agency

[edit]
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 discussion was Delete. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox European Union agency (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

redundant to {{Infobox organisation}} (sample conversion) losing only the over-large and unneccessary map; and the undefined "signed" date, but adding the "type". Only 32 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:Infobox WFYS

[edit]
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 discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox WFYS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan; I've replaced the only 7 instances with {{Infobox summit}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:Infobox Archie Comics character

[edit]
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 discussion was Merge. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Archie Comics character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

redundant to {{Infobox comics character}} or {{Infobox character}}; only 21 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:Infobox winter storm

[edit]
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 discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox winter storm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox hurricane}}; only 84 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. There are differences. The hurricane infobox is designed for hurricanes, with emphasis on maximum sustained winds and the basin. The winter storm lists the highest accumulation (which is not feasible for hurricanes, since not every hurricane article has any sort of maximum accumulation), emphasis on gusts (which are more important in winter storms, not so much in tropical cyclones), and an adjustable damage total (I believe, since hurricane articles have a uniform USD worldwide, but that might not be the case for winter storms, where it'd be more sensible to list the Euro total, per above). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While i welcome a review of the various weather related infoboxes i dont think merging any of them into the Infbox Hurricane would work since infobox hurricane contains several parameters that would not show up in an extratropical cyclone infobox without causing original research. So thus i oppose a merger of any infobox in to the infobox hurricane.Jason Rees (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I largely agree with the above. “The National Hurricane Centre is the central clearinghouse for all tropical cyclone forecasts and observations occurring in these areas, regardless of their effect on the US.” The information for Hurricanes is already internationalised and standardised and specific. while the basic data for extratropical storms is mostly localised, non-standard and generic. These two situations appear to me to be rather incompatible, and in my opinion represent a significant barrier in the merging of the two successfully. I think because the data for hurricanes are released from such a central clearing house, to dilute the specialisation of the hurricane infobox by genericising it to be useful for extratropical storms would be favourable to neither. I think two templates would also follow the general meteorological division between tropical and extratropical. Which would then leave the three less used, more generic templates to be merged under storm or extratropical storm which could be worked to suit articles for Nor'eaters, European Windstorms, Pacific Northwest Storms, etc... as appropriate.Lacunae (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. In addition to the points brought up above, {{Infobox hurricane}} has a substantially different format, as it prominently displays the tropical cyclone's classification in the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, as well as another relevant tropical cyclone scale. The hurricane infobox is in fact built around that idea, so a hurricane→winter storm merger would lose a valuable (and IMO, critical) feature of the infobox. Also, there are no similar internationally-accepted, commonly-used classifications for mid-latitude cyclones, so a winter storm→hurricane merger would make little sense. The layout and content of both infoboxes is simply too different for the merger to be useful, which is a reflection of the entirely-different physical processes that cause tropical and extratropical cyclones. My recommendation would be to consider merging the mid-latitude cyclone infoboxes that Lacunae listed above into a single box, using {{Infobox cyclone}} as a basis instead. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral merge. I personally don't see any way these can be cleanly merged, given the above-mentioned differences, but if it can be demonstrably done I would support. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 20:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per Hink. The winter storm infobox is used on many pages for major blizzards, and the hurricane infobox does not have provision for entering snowfall accumulation. Tropical cyclones and blizzards are very different storm systems by their nature, and therefore should have separate infoboxes. --Drm310 (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Although tropical cyclones get more coverage on Wikipedia, a different style of templates is still helpful for most mid-latitude cyclones and other weather events, such as forest fires and heat waves. The effects of each type of storm are vastly varied. ~AH1 (discuss!) 18:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Template:The Doon School

[edit]
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 discussion was Keep. hare j 22:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Doon School (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

What is this template trying to achieve? What is its purpose? At the moment it is simply a badly grouped set of links (many of which are in groups of just one). The template serves no purpose and should be deleted. Bob Re-born (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This template is trying to achieve exactly what Template:Hudson River School & Template:Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney are trying to achieve, though in a more detailed and correct manner. In fact, the Doon School template was inspired by this template : Template:Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney after CT Cooper (the admin of schools portal) suggested that the Doon School page should look at Presbyterian school's wiki page to improve. That's what we did. This template is absolutely necessary as it achieves to compile many Doon School related articles under one roof for the ease of the reader.

    As for changing the colours of the template, your decision was in bad taste, I'm afraid. As the template colours are always inspired by the school colours. What would you then say about Template:University of Oxford? The colours earlier used were much more easier to read, as a matter of fact. As dark blue and white share a better contrast than your light grey and white, simple colour-sense. Anyway, I am not here to annoy you, contradict you. You are entitled to your view but all I have to say is that this template is for greater good and greatly enhances the quality of the Doon School page. There are many other schools who have this sort of template, but of much poorer quality. Therefore, I will be grateful if you can revoke this deletion request. Also, in all humility, please sort this matter out as soon as you can. It is not worth of your precious time (even mine). I have many other big contributions to make in this wonderful place (I'm a highly excited newby here :P) So, please, can you repeal this? Many thanks! [[User:Merlaysamuel|Merlaysamuel]] (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In line with current usage of organization navigational templates, see no particular reason to delete this one. henrik•talk 18:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with henrik; keep. DS (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was surprised to see that there was enough information to warrant the navbox (the coverage was more complete than I expected to see for a school), but it does seem to warrant it after all. - Bilby (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: There is currently a discussion at the template's talk page regarding the use of color in the template. Could anyone here briefly point me to any relevant policies or discussions on the use of color? I really don't have the time to start a search right now, and I hoping someone here just happens to know what I'm looking for. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I struggling to understand the purpose of these school templates, when the headteachers, alumni articles (etc) can be wikilinked into the school article, or added as 'See also's'. Overly specific templates like these only encourage people to write articles on non-notable headmasters, alumni etc. Sionk (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apart from the template examples I have given above, please look at this Featured School Article template: Template:Baltimore City College. Please note two points:- first, it uses school colours (and it's a featured article) which are Black and Orange. Second, it is a better contrast than the standard Wikipedia colours. And if I'm not wrong standard Wiki colours are used when there is no good consensus on colours. And as for Bob's visibility-problem argument, i request all of you to look for yourselves at the following two templates:- Template:The Doon School & the one I've temporarily created in my sandbox:- (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Merlaysamuel/sandbox). Apart from the fact that Blue and White are Doon School colours, isn't it so much easier to read with the original school colours? Please be candid. I hugely look forward to hearing from all of you in this regard. Let good sense prevail.

[[User:Merlaysamuel|Merlaysamuel]] (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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.

Template:Infobox architect

[edit]
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 discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox architect (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox person}}. Has only four fields not in the latter, which can be converted thus:

  • |practice= = |organisation=
  • |significant_buildings= = |notable_works=
  • |significant_projects= = |notable_works=
  • |significant_design= = |notable_works=

(for example using {{Plainlist}} to separate multiple entries). Also lacks many of {{Infobox person}}'s useful parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – As someone who has created at least a dozen articles about architects, I've found this template to be useful and user-friendly (which cannot be said of the full version of "Infobox person"). The four fields unique to this template have value. Canadian2006 (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not everyone (in fact few) people are conversant with amending info boxes. For editors creating architect articles, the architect info template is pre-set up and useful. As the proposer admits, the infobox has additional pre-sets which are tailored to architecture articles. Sionk (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template is not a "replacement" for {{Infobox person}}, it amends it for ease of use in a certain type of article. It is NOT a completely separate template. In that regard, I think it's a perfectly cromulent use of the template space. Circéus (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—as a redundant template. The proposed conversion provides many benefits (What do you do about an architect that later goes into politics? What if said person becomes a published author?) There doesn't need to be separate infoboxes for every profession that lead to issues with individuals that cross professional boundaries. Imzadi 1979 → 19:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Infobox Architect, yes, only gives four differing fields from Infobox Person, but is a specialized version of the latter pertaining only to architects. It is simpler and more efficient for one to read "significant designs" or the other two distinguishable fields than a generic "notable works" field. dci | TALK 20:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Infobox architect has a broad enough scope, is specific to the articles about architects, is more user-friendly as it does not contain an endless list of parameters many of which would not be desirable for articles about architects and unnecessarily would invite spamming, and is more practical to be separated for any future improvements. It is a wrong target for this kind of merger, the IMO minor technical benefits being out-weighted by the editorial and encyclopaedic drawbacks. The distinction between buildings, projects and designs is warranted for many architects who were active in multiple creative fields, and the proposed "substitution" of specific fields with generic designations is not an improvement. Also I note that the nominator should have notified WikiProject Architecture about this radical proposal, as the template is central to the scope of the wikiproject and is accordingly tagged. --ELEKHHT 00:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Serves its purpose well. - Ipigott (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Pubdog (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Bizutage (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)- it serves it purpose well and is useful[reply]
  • Keep--Fortunate4now (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately this has attracted a lot of groupthink and pointless "!votes" (urgh), which I'd hope the closing admin will discard. Andy has put together the start of an essay explaining why this work is beneficial, now located at Wikipedia:infobox consolidation. In this case I think it's definitely beneficial to redirect this to {{infobox person}}, as the four separate fields are really just all instances of "notable works" as already covered by the person infobox. There are less than 1200 transclusions, which rather suggests that a majority of our articles on architects aren't using it anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh well, if no-one else's opinion counts (apart from Pigsonthewig who feels they have a right to reply on every comment) then why have the deletion discussion at all? Has there been some consensus elsewhere that everyone should use a one-size-fits-all template? Sionk (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:infobox consolidation is an "essay [that] contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints [my emphasis]. Consider these views with discretion." --ELEKHHT 12:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Btw, that "groupthink" comment I find offensive, and the constant 'merge all people infoboxes drive', against all arguments, I perceive as disruptive. --ELEKHHT 13:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comment by Chris Cunningham, above, is particularly unhelpful in using the terms !votes and groupthink in referring to comments with which s/he disagrees, followed by "which I'd hope the closing admin will discard". Why are some comments deemed more legitimate than others? In a multiple-editor decision like this, deprecating others' comments is not the way to proceed. I quote from WP:CONS: "Some discussions result in no consensus. "No consensus" means that there is no consensus either way: it means that there is no consensus to take an action, but it also and equally means that there is no consensus not to take the action. What the community does next depends on the context. [Bullet] In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept." Canadian2006 (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't a vote. When someone goes and notifies WikiProject Architecture about this discussion using non-neutral language like "This seems to be part of a campaign by an editor who thinks everyone should use the generic infobox... It seems useful to me to have a specific infobox for architects, using appropriate terminology", and then all of a sudden the TfD gets numerous insightful comments such as "Keep--Pubdog" from members of that WikiProject, it disrupts the discussion. Consensus is not a case of counting heads, and content-free "!votes" (urgh) are (or at least should be) discarded when weighing up the overall feel of the discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • One 'keep' comment is not "numerous". Pubdog is not a member of Wikiproject Architecture. You're in danger of being non-neutral :) I stand by my comment in the Architecture Project. If Pigsonthewing had done the correct thing and notified the Project, my message would have been unnecessary. Members of that Group use this infobox more than anyone else, on a regular basis, therefore their opinion is important. These deletion discussions are a clear initiative by someone who thinks people should use generic infoboxes - see the [[essay mentioned above and the other deletion discussions on this page. Sionk (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge: I think I recall being forced to drop a few intended fields from the infobox of an architect article because they were not supported by this template. I can't remember for sure, though. Anyway, merging as proposed would prevent said problem. Concerns regarding ease of use can be easily solved by creating a separate documentation page. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies to all for misinterpreting this as a vote. I don't normally enter these forums. I have created a number of bios for architects related to the Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. I have found the architect template most useful for highlighting notable projects that result in their works being nominated and included on the National Register of Historic Places. Best wishes.--Pubdog (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Elekhh and other users. The requester seems to have an extreme view on generalization, while there is nothing wrong with specialization. I fail to see the balance in this approach. {{Person}} is way too general. Like I said before on other template discussions, why not keep/create {{Infobox object}}, {{Infobox concept}} and {{Infobox person}} and delete ALL OTHER infobox templates in Wikipedia. Someone seems to confuse gravely an encyclopedia with a database schema designed with a focus on normalization. These specialized templates make it much easier for editors to gather academic information on one hand and for readers to skim through it and get the data quickly on the other hand. They also help tremendously to group articles in series, as in this case, a series on architects. I would like to kindly invite the requester for the deletion of so many useful templates to start writing articles (ideally using such templates) and stop deleting. Also maybe is time to WP:COOL too.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about you drop the Slippery slope arguments and cease describing an opinion that you disagree with as extremism, and address the issues raised above: How are the converted articles less good; how is a customised pro forma of Infobox person less user friendly than the current template? Your claim that "these specialized templates make it much easier for editors to gather academic information on one hand and for readers to skim through it and get the data quickly on the other hand" is otherwise baseless. As is your insinuation that I do not write articles and your spurious attempt to associate my technical clean-up activities with the deletion of content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you make the error to assume that {{Infobox object}}, {{Infobox concept}} and {{Infobox person}} are irreducible. In fact these can be also merged into {{Infobox whatever}}. --ELEKHHT 00:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (for now) - While I think Template:Plainlist is interesting (I'll have to keep that in mind for future reference), we shouldn't be relying on that so much on something that's likely going to be not uncommon when dealing with people. I'm thinking about someone who has had more than one job in their life, and therefore may have more than one category of works in their life. Writer; Director; producer? How about television or film or internet work? And that's just in a semi related field. What of (in this case) an architect who has written one or more books, besides being involved in architectural projects? It would be nice to see Template:infobox person have the functionality of at least 4 lines, with the additional functionality of variables to pass for what the displayed line label for each should be (while keeping a default). This shouldn't be much of a big deal, yet would deal with the concerns here, and likely elsewhere. I already see that it's been modified to add "notable credits" as an internal option. So actually fixing this to allow the label to be a variable (with a default) would seem to make more sense, and incidentally help with your apparent infobox merge plans. - jc37 18:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - while the template is handy, and I've used it myself, the infobox person is more than adequate and allows for more information suited to a biography. This 'vote' has got a little heated on both sides which does nobody any favours. Warren (talk) 11:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect, at the moment the actual template is completely redundant. Maybe we should think about creating a showcase page for Infobox person with fields for the different topics - and every relevant wikiproject should get it's infobox-showcase in wikiproject-space, too. mabdul 13:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In order to state that "at the moment the actual template is completely redundant", you must ignore that the proposal here is (1) to merge three specific fields: "buildings", "projects" and "design" into the generic "works", a distinction often relevant for architects (example), (2) to replace the specific terminology of "practice" with the generic term of "organisation", (3) to complicate the use of the template by displacing the specific documentation for architects to a page separate from that of the template, and (4) to facilitate the use of fields irrelevant to a subject notable for being architect, so that attempts like this would actually work. Your redundancy assertion implies that technical standardisation is far more important than content and user-friendliness. --ELEKHHT 00:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although I see that some points are valid, I don't how an unexperienced or confused user like in the example of Oscar Niemeyer would react simply another infobox (it simply doesn't matter because this person had no experience with templates and doesn't know how they work). The "documentation" on the infobox person is a bit bad since it doesn't show enough examples. mabdul 00:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It serves its unique purpose for architect articles.Maile66 (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Specification has a purpose; "notable works" is vague while the "redundant" parameters of this infobox template make it easier for readers to locate pertinent information (which is what infoboxes are meant to do). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Template:1997–98 Honduran Liga Nacional squads

[edit]
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 discussion was No Consensus. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1997–98 Honduran Liga Nacional squads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unsourced, basically unused and non-notable Koppapa (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:Pghmetrocats

[edit]
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 discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pghmetrocats (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused cat page boilerplate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:Jutsus A-Z

[edit]
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 discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jutsus A-Z (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hardcoded TOC only used on three ancient userspace content dumps, now themselves at MfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:Category A-Z TOC

[edit]
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 discussion was Substitute and delete. Courcelles 17:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Category A-Z TOC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hardcoded instance of {{category TOC}}. Code is simple enough to transclude directly. Recommend substitution of existing examples. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:Gaza Flotilla Raid

[edit]
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 discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gaza Flotilla Raid (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

If Gaza flotilla raid is going to get the infobox it needs, it won't be this one. Besides, this is not the way to make a template anyway. The template is based on a subst of Template:Infobox civilian attack, and that template can be employed when editors wish to equip that article with the requisite infobox. The nominated template is never going to be used and we don't need to retain it for historical reasons. meco (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:Harvrefcol

[edit]
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 discussion was renamed Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Harvrefcol (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Rename to Cite LSA. This is a citation template that use the Linguistic Society of America (LSA) style. The name is confusing, as the other Harv templates are inline. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed; article uses updated. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Renaming is OK; before I came here I thought you guys were on the deletion warpath again (standardization into One Template to Rule Them All is very definitely Not OK). If you rename this, there are other Harvcol templates to rename as well (or should be, unless some Valued Editor deleted them). Ling.Nut3 (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Twinkle updated from deletion to discussion in on my list. What other templates are related? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, {{Harvcol}}, {{Harvcoltxt}}, {{Harvcolnb}}. I hope you're not just leading me down the garden path toward the chopping block of deletion. I really... have strong negative feelings and a negative opinion regarding... those Valued Editors who somehow have persuaded themselves that standardizing Wikipedia into using one and only one citation format is a constructive (rather than destructive) idea. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the others in Category:Author-date citation templates. Those templates are well-used and their purpose is clear and useful; I see no need to rename them. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could have. I suppose I am more accustomed to discussing templates here. I did start a discussion on the template talk, but with no response, I wanted make this transparent. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

UK + GB station infoboxes

[edit]
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 discussion was Keep. The only reason advanced for the merge of these heavily used templates is to rationalize them. It, however can not overweight the valid objections raised against the merge: its complexity, a high probability of errors and unclear end result. The nominator is encouraged, at least, to create a mock up version of the merged template before renominating these templates. Ruslik_Zero 16:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK disused station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox GB station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox UK heritage station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox UK disused station and Template:Infobox UK heritage station into Template:Infobox GB station.
Redundancy. Merge, rename if needed, remove navbox-like links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fully agree with merger, all can easily be covered by a single template. --Bob Re-born (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Yet another instance of the all-infoboxes-are-redundant-to-each-other culture that is going through TFD. But if this does go through, you must be very careful: some similarly-named parameters have different purposes. For example, {{infobox GB station}} has |manager= which is for the present-day manager of the station. However, the same parameter in {{Infobox UK disused station}} is a legacy parameter treated as a synonym for |pregroup= - the owner of the station prior to 1 January 1923. There will be a lot of fixup work to do: just look in Category:Unusual parameters of Infobox station template for those which might be misusing the |line= parameter. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue with synonymous paramters for different purposes is symptomatic of the problems caused by forked/ redundant templates such as these. Looking at the specifics, the parameters in {{Infobox UK disused station}} are very badly named, and a good first step would be to run a bot, changing, say, |line= -> |founder=; |manager= -> |pre_grouping= ;|owner= -> |post_grouping=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would not trust a bot to make the changes, especially if it means introducing yet another set of parameter names (founder, pre_grouping, post_grouping) which none of these templates presently use. Each article's infobox should be separately considered, because in many cases a simple one-for-one swap is unsuitable. In {{Infobox UK disused station}}, the parameters |original=, |pregroup= and |postgroup= were relatively late additions, intended to replace |line=, |manager= and |owner=; in the time which has elapsed, some station infoboxes now have all six parameters present, usually with some blank, but with all kinds of odd combinations. That is why I set up the tracking category Category:Unusual parameters of Infobox station template - initially I would sort out |line=, because this one sometimes does have a legitimate use in conjunction with |original= - see Alphington Halt railway station for example. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The two templates serve different purposes. {{Infobox UK disused station}} and {{Infobox GB station}} are complementary. When a station opens or closes the template can be changed to reflect the new status, for example Alloa. As for {{Infobox UK heritage station}} this is again complementary. There are a few stations which are dual Heritage and open National Rail. These are taking the National Rail by default, however get messy due to dual owner, only part stats, etc (eg Minffordd). --Stewart (talk | edits) 08:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merger would cause work and would need to be checked and addressed by manual editing and I fail to see any reason to change. Having a several simple templates (for example) {{infobox x y}} and {{infobox x z}} or one complex one {{infobox x|type=y}} seems a just question of programming style. I favour the simple solution as easy to understood, extend, maintain and currently understood by users. Edgepedia (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Andy points out, the subtle (and not-so-subtle) differences in syntax between these similar templates is a Bad Thing, and is almost certainly tripping editors up. If merging these is too much work right now then the two sub-templates should be deprecated while {{infobox GB station}} is improved to accommodate them, at which point they can be converted over via a wrapper. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Before making any decision I'd really like to see what is proposed for the unified template, specifically in remove navbox-like links. NtheP (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Opposition to this proposal appears to b entirely along the lines of "don't wanna, would be hard". That's rarely a good idea, and in this particular case the argument for merging appears sound for several different reasons. Thus, I volunteer for the cleanup crew if we decide to go all-manual, but that said, I suspect a bot-cleanup is nowhere near as perilous as suggested. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Each of these templates is adapted to the particularities of the category of station to which they refer. Thus, whilst {{Infobox UK disused station}} contains links to the index of closed stations, {{Infobox UK heritage station}} points to the index of heritage stations and {{Infobox GB station}} directs to National Rail stations. Any clean-up operation would run a high risk of loss, misinterpretation and/or misallocation of infobox data. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You appear to have overlooked the "remove navbox-like links" part of the proposal. Why, do you think, they are needed? What is the evidence for your "high risk of loss, misinterpretation and/or misallocation" claim? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The removal of the "navbox-like links" (which you now clarify are the links to the various index pages) is another reason to oppose this proposal; what is the justification for removing these? There is obviously going to be no evidence for my statement as the proposals have not been implemented! However, one can imagine that transferring data from one parameter to another is not going to be without problems, e.g. the "manager" parameter used in two of the infoboxes to indicate different purposes, while the "line" and "preservation" parameters are not used in the GB station infobox. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • One can imagine all sorts of things; but we don't base TfD decisions on them. You appear to have overlooked my question about the navbox-like elements: "Why, do you think, they are needed?". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please don't answer a question with a question. You are the one proposing the removal of the links and so you should provide the rationale as per the guidelines. For the record, the links to the index provide an easy means of reference for users to find other stations of the same type. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Since you want to make an issue of it, I asked a question, and you answered it with another. Also, we already have navboxes to "provide an easy means of reference for users to find other stations of the same type". The links in the infobox duplicate these, in a manner not used on most of Wikipedia, and are thus redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • WP:NAVBOX doesn't require "navbox-like links" to be contained within a navbox at the bottom; a box down the right-hand side is permitted. Since the infobox is already there, why not put it in that? Saves a box. Anyway, the "navbox-like links" are a matter for the talk pages of the templates, not TFD. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Following this to it logical conclusion in the UK means that {{Infobox London station}} should also be included in this discussion. Incidentally, the UK station infoboxes as currently setup is much simpler than elsewhere in English Wikipedia. See Category:Rail transport navigational boxes of Victoria for an example where there are multiple infoboxes for stations on different lines, etc. --Stewart (talk | edits) 11:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - would seem to require a lot of effort for little benefit. However I would support a move of Infobox GB station to Infobox UK station (which redirects to it) for consistency. However, this is outside the scope of this discussion.  An optimist on the run! 12:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, rename parameters, update docs, and introduce a parameter to switch the navbox-links for getting peace in this discussion. mabdul 14:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: can somebody explain me why we don't try to merge all these station templates into {{Infobox station}}? mabdul 14:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Might I respectfully ask those who are !voting "delete" or "merge" to state how often they use these infoboxes? Either when writing new articles, or expanding existing articles, I don't mind. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody should do so, just as those !voting keep are not asked to validate their vote by demonstrating a knowledge of template markup and past mergers. The question, while no doubt asked with good faith, is contrary to key Wikipedia policies, and to how TfD works, and is unhelpful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This appears to be case of change for the sake of change. It's been asked several times, but I've yet to see a coherent statement of what advantages this merge would have and how these advantages would outweigh the considerable effort required to perform the merge without introducing errors. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not "change for the sake of change". The reasons why overly-similar templates such as these are harmful, and should be merged, is addressed in Wikipedia:infobox consolidation. there are plenty of people willing to do the work; nothing will be required of you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • A document that you created after starting this TFD. Was it discussed at WP:VPP? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Its date of creation is immaterial, and there was no need for it to be discussed at any such place. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • So what are the advantages? The linked document boils down to (1) infobox templates should be merged because lots of infobox templates have been merged, (2) templates having different appearances is irrelevant, and (3) we can, and why does it matter if it becomes so complicated that non-experts can't understand it? Point (1) is pure WP:OTHERSTUFF, while many other infoboxes may or may not have been merged we're not discussing those. (2) is irrelevant to this case as it's refuting an argument nobody is making. (3) is partly a "we can, therefore we should" argument, which isn't a good one. It's also rather against the spirit of WP:KISS (a user essay, but one which represents what is widely regarded as a good principle in everyday life.
            Simplified maintenance is a noble cause, but the more complicated a template is the more complicated maintaining it is and the fewer people who can (or have the confidence to) actually do the maintaining. In the UK railway stations changing between any of open, disused and heritage is not a common occurrence, indeed since the late 1960s I'd be surprised if there was ever more than single digit number of changes in a calendar year, so maintenance as is isn't arduous. Disadvantes include increased complexity, high risk of introducing errors and/or breaking the templates during the merge process, and all the effort required to perform the merge (as most of it could not reliably be done by a bot). So I'll ask again what the benefits, specifically, of merging these templates are and how they outweigh the disadvantages.
            Relying on a user essay you wrote yourself is poor form at best. That the essay is not linked anywhere other than a redirect in your userspace, this and one other TfD, and has had no community discussion makes it a very weak argument indeed. Thryduulf (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • You ignore the key points in that document, and its provenance and links to it are not relevant; no-one has claimed that it's a formal policy, it simply summarises answers I and others have given in TfD discussions of redundant infoboxes over the last two or three years. Your claim of "high risk of introducing errors and/or breaking the templates during the merge process" is pure FUD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've re-read the document and still fail to see anything that explains how any advantages of merging these templates (which I'm still not seeing as significant) outweigh the disadvantages detailed above which you seem to repeatedly ignore. It isn't FUD at all to point out that any automated process to merge the templates would be very likely to introduce errors - it's just pointing out that because of the way these templates are actually used means that one or more people would need to do the merge by hand (because the templates are not forks or duplicates of one another). The time required to do this would be considerable, so countering your argument that merging is a trivial, automatable process that can be dismissed as a reason not to merge. With your next response, try explaining why these templates should be merged rather than why lots of other templates have been merged. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've said that before, but you have now twice ignored me when I say that the user essay which you imply is somehow a standard or guideline doesn't address the issues. To be explicit, listed below are all the advantages of merging templates that are given in Wikipedia:infobox consolidation:
    1. More templates = greater maintenance burden
      • The unstated corollary to this is that more complicated templates are harder to maintain and there are fewer people capable of doing that maintenance.
    2. Since 2010 more templates proposed for merging have been merged than haven't been.

As you seem not to be able to see them, here is an explicit list of disadvantages to merging given above by myself and others:

    • Generic templates are more complicated as they contain a large number of irrelevant parameters
    • The individual templates use the same/similarly named parameters to do different jobs. Every transclusion would thus require a human to determine what is meant in each situation. Note there are at 969 instances that are explicitly tagged as using one set of parameters in a manner that is not predictable (and there is no guarantee that there are not untagged ones also).
    • The templates are complementary to each other - they do different jobs for different purposes. This keeps it simple for everybody.
    • Some stations have multiple statuses so any single template that could do the job would be hugely complicated - a barrier to participation. The foundation is very keen that we reduce barriers to participation. Some templates need to be hugely complicated (e.g. template:Convert), others do not.
    • Merging creates lots of work, for little to no benefit
    • Merging would seem to require the removal of the links to index pages, for which there is no consensus.

Despite being asked, you still haven't explained why in this case advantages of reduced maintenance outweigh the disadvantages listed, especially the work required (whether by human or bot) to merge the templates and convert the articles. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, I haven't ignored you. I responded to your fallacious claims by pointing out that you ignored the key points in the document; and I responded to your admission that you failed to see something. Please feel fr to try to substantiate your claim that I "imply [it] is somehow a standard or guideline". The issue of the ambiguously-named parameters is dealt with above; it is they, and the existence of multiple templates, that are the barrier to entry. The reasons why overly-similar templates such as these are harmful, and should be merged, remain addressed in the document discussed. the disadvantages you list are bogus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I failed to see only what is not there, in exactly the same way that I failed to see any pictures of Marilyn Monroe or Daffy Duck in that document! I've now explicitly listed all the advantages given in that document and explained how one is pure WP:OTHERSTUFF and so irrelevant. To the other I've given the corollary and explained how this applies in this situation (basically one template trying to do the job of these three would be significantly more complicated) and also explained the reasons why any conversion would involve a very significant amount of work. I then repeated my assertion that all the listed disadvantages outweighed the limited (at best) benefits from your proposal. As it is you that is trying to change the status quo, the onus is on you to show that there will be a net benefit to doing so. All you have done so far is repeat that the linked essay explains everything, even when we've replied saying it doesn't. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The templates were created (and have been maintained) by members of WP:RAIL and WP:UKRAIL. Any problems with them have been dealt with on the talk pages either of the projects or the templates. It is these projects which use the templates, and presumably are presently happy with them as they stand, because there have not been any recent calls by project members to merge the templates. Every so often, a feature in one is added to the others, but we consider the impact first, and don't rush in. A wholesale merge such as that being pushed here seems very much like rushing things. One step at a time - i.e. one parameter (or param group) at a time, as and when a need is identified - and we may well make the templates identical eventually; but this is not a given. There is no point, for example, of adding the usage statistics parameters to {{infobox UK disused station}}, nor of adding the params used to show the preservation company to {{infobox GB station}}. We are not against merging per se - it has been done before (indeed, six of the redirects to Template:Infobox GB station were previously templates in their own right), but we prefer to merge on our own terms. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)To help things further, here is a point-by-point breakdown of everything the essay says:
      1. Intro: This explains what is meant by "Infobox consolidation" and that the essay exists to answer questions about it. It doesn't say anything about why it should or should not be done.
      2. What are infoboxes: This explains what an infobox is, nothing more, nothing less.
      3. What is the best way to approach this: This just says that some infoboxes should be merged and some shouldn't, because some differences justify separate boxes and some differences don't. It doesn't explain what the different differences are, nor why some of them justify independence and some don't.
      4. Why is having lots of similar infoboxes a bad thing: This section contains the sole advantage that is relevant to discussions, namely that fewer templates require less maintenance
      5. Sportspeople/Journalists: This says that genre-specific details are something that justifies having separate templates for some professions and not others. It does not explain why merging templates is advantageous, just that not merging is sometimes the best thing.
      6. But aren't journalists important: This explains that separate infoboxes aren't a measure of importance. That's just saying that importance isn't a reason to oppose a merge, not why merging is beneficial in the first place.
      7. What if a merged template has parameters not relevant: This just says that complexity can be hidden from the end user, which is not a reason to create the complexity in the first place but a hand-wavy dismissal of unnecessary complexity being a barrier to entry.
      8. But I spent a lot of time working on that infobox: This section says that the amount of effort that has gone into a template is not a reason to keep it separate, but equally it is not a reason to merge it either.
      9. Short names are easier to type and remember: All this does is say that redirects exist that can point to the merged template, it doesn't give any advantages of merging in the first place.
      10. Appearances: Looks don't matter is all this says, which is not a reason for or against merging.
      11. Time better spent doing other things: Here is the claim that most merges are done with bots or scripts. Just because it can be done easily in many cases is not a reason why it should be done - no matter how easy or difficult something is, there is only a point in doing something that has advantages, and this section doesn't give any.
      12. Minority viewpoint: Since 2010 lots of redundant infoboxes have been merged or deleted. So what? See WP:OTHERSTUFF.
      13. Why don't we do away with infoboxes: This section rightly states the question is irrelevant.
    • So in summary, almost all the essay just refutes irrelevant (generally or to this specific case) arguments and says that it's easy to do while saying very little about why it should be done. Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - rational = rationalise - any template difference issues can be fixed as part of the merge using a bot. eg the "manager=" field. Suggest the addition of a field "type=" that can be "heritage", "disused" etc - probably initially undisplayed - but kept to preserve the context legacy - this could be used at a later date to control any sub-styling issues at a later date, and also to fix any linking issues. Simplifies work if a station closes, and prevents confusion/editor memory workloadOranjblud (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominator has currently been blocked, for a matter unrelated to this TfD. Whilst I've opposed the nomination, I feel it is only fair to defer closing this whilst his unblock request is still open, to allow him to make any reply.  An optimist on the run! 12:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cheers for the headsup. As the block is indeed entirely unrelated to this AfD, I agree that closure here should be deferred while there is a pending unblock request. Indeed, if he is unblocked then we should allow a reasonable time for him to respond to the latest points made above should he wish to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, I see no reason why these can't be easily merged. Frietjes (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Template:Infobox UK police

[edit]
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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK police (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Flagged as deprecated, in favour of {{Infobox Law enforcement agency}}, since April 2008; only 34 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:Infobox UK feature

[edit]
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 discussion was no consensus to delete at this time. However, there appears to be no major resistance to migrating some (or even all) of the transclusions to more specific infoboxes, adding any missing features. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK feature (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

archaic markup and geographically- rather then subject-focussed. Used on a variety of articles which could use better, topic-specific templates such as {{Infobox lake}}, {{Infobox river}}, {{Infobox railway}}, {{Infobox park}}, {{Infobox building}}, or {{Infobox museum}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that we probably don't need a general-purpose infobox here, though I think the cleanup here goes beyond that which TfD normally involves. This probably needs to first be deprecated and flagged with a tracking category, as all of the existing transclusions will need to be manualy migrated to whichever specialist infobox best fits them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the author. What I wanted to provide was a very simple general purpose template for simple features, so that the average user does not have to struggle with the (sometimes) very complex correct templates. I think it serves that purpose very well, and those who want to can migrate onto the correct template. The format is the same as Template:Infobox UK place so that all UK articles can be consistent. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The markup is indeed unusual but that's an editing issue not a TfD matter. I agree (with nom?) that such a template shouldn't really be place-specific: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. Nonetheless, I do believe there's a need for a generic feature infobox, especially one that incorporates the others much like {{Infobox officeholder}}. ClaretAsh 11:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a user of this one and for my particular feature (a peninsula/coastal feature) I can't find a suitable alternative. I don't have the knowledge to create one of my own. My view is probably that it should be retained, but to be used when there isn't an alternative available ? Jerry (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is wrong with having a catch-all template for things that do not fit in elsewhere? LynwoodF (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are so many features that can't be covered by the 'specific' templates, and plenty where it would be hard to imagine a template ever being written to cover them. There will always be a need for a last-resort, though its use should be discouraged in favour of the specifics. If it just disappeared, how many articles would need to be reconsidered? Sammy_r (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but actively maintain. Scanning the list of transclusions, previewing some of them (using popups) it looks like most of the uses could be replaced with something more specific for electoral wards, museums, bridges, railways, etc. and if there isn't one already, there might be scope for an infobox for locations on Hadrians Wall. I think this migration to more specific infoboxes should be done where it can be. It's likely there are features that cannot currently be migrated, and this template should be maintained for those uses. It will also allow collation of uses that don't currently have an infobox and so we gain knowledge of where a new infobox is required. This also has the benefit of not requiring new and infrequent users to be familiar with all the multitude of infoboxes (quite a daunting list), editors who are familiar with specific boxes can migrate these uses without having to find all the information entered. This is the wiki way and should be actively encouraged, rather than forcing new users to be immediate experts in everything. Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – the article for Crag Lough seems to be one of those that would be difficult to transfer. There is a 'proper' template (Template:Infobox lake) but that template does not have a location map nor does it have any free-format parameters so that we (in the UK) could include UK map references (which are our standard map reference). Using both templates in that article seems to meet everyone’s needs. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for now, but support actively converting to more specific infoboxes where appropriate. Frietjes (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Template:Infobox HM prison

[edit]
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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox HM prison (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 129 transclusions; scope for few more. Redundant to {{Infobox prison}}, which has all the necessary parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:Infobox UK street

[edit]
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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK street (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 31 transclusions; redundant to {{Infobox street}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I personally don't see the need to delete this infobox. I prefer it as it is more concise than the aforementioned alternative and more attractive. I vote to 'keep' - also I wouldn't want to have to fix up those 31 pages if it is deleted. --TBM10 (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't keep duplicate or forked templates for aesthetic reasons; the other template should be improved if it is deficient in that regard. Nor do we ave duplicate or forked templates just for conciseness; you can keep a pared-down pro-forma in your user space or a project page if you wish. Replacing 31 templates is a trivial task, for an editor with a script, or even without. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per TBM10. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—per nom. While not wanting to fixing 31 pages might be a valid opinion, it's not a valid reason not to delete a template. (A bot or an automated script can handle the conversions, and with only 31 uses, a human could hand convert the transclusions easily.) Aesthetics are not a valid rationale to keep a template either because any perceived appearance differences are solvable. I would know that Infobox street uses {{infobox}} while Infobox UK street does not, which might explain some of the visual differences. Imzadi 1979 → 19:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I see no reason to keep the templates separated. --Rschen7754 23:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, completely redundant (and hard HTML coded). mabdul 14:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Template:Infobox UK property

[edit]
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 discussion was no consensus at this time, due to concern about the lack of support of certain UK specific parameters in other infoboxes. It may be a good idea to see which of the transclusions could be migrated to a more specific infobox without loss of information. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK property (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 87 transclusions. Most could use {{Infobox building}}, a few {{Infobox museum}} or {{Infobox park}}. Best approach probably to replace the latter, then blitz what's left by front-ending and SUBSTing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:WrestleMania venues

[edit]
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 discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WrestleMania venues (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The linked articles are very weakly linked to each other. WrestleMania is a one-day event, and not a major part of the identity of any of these venues. It's quite improbable that any particular reader of, say, Staples Center, is there because of an interest in WrestleMania. The link to WrestleMania in the article body is adequate. In contrast, a navbox like Template:NBA Arenas is more appropriate because a sizable portion of readers might be interested in the arena's role as an NBA venue, and want to compare it with other NBA arenas. Toohool (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is the template equivalent of OCAT performer by performance. Resolute 14:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WrestleMania is not really a one day event. The show is one day but more is held along with it. The Hall of Fame, Fan Axcess, etc. Its a notable mainstream gathering covered by a variety of publications. As such it creates a large economic difference in the surrounding areas. In many cases it breaks attendance records for some of these arenas, as such a template being featured showing arenas which this largely known event has been held at is helpful. Honestly I don't know why it exists, but I feel it is still useful.--WillC 10:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WillC makes good points above as to why hosting Wrestlemania would be considered highly-significant. There is also Template:Super Bowl venues in existence, and this is a similar deal. I also strongly dispute the nominator's statement that it's "quite improbable" that anyone would visit a stadium article because of a Wrestlemania tie-in. Entertainment venues tend to be predominantly notable because events that take place there. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 05:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Template:JEL code

[edit]
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 discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:JEL code (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

weird, nonstandard side box which mostly just adds pages to a category. Categories should be added directly rather than via templates; furthermore, this is being used in articlespace, and it definitely doesn't belong there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-standard; use categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful way of economic classification. If you want to delete it, you should first convert all the codes to categories.--Sanya3 (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but delete from article space, because it isn't really intended to be used that way. It is meant to link categories back to the JEL classification codes, which is an organizational listing of economic topics. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 09:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep learning the JEL code of an economics topic is useful when doing a literature search. "Weird, nonstandard" is a poor rationale unless you believe all innovation is in the past. 71.212.231.71 (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Achieves very little and is of dubious value. All it does is bung things in a tracking category and clutter up oodles of category pages with a little box. And then what is done with Category:Categories which are included in the JEL classification codes? If it is kept the same thing can be acheived by adding it as a hidden category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but edit - In looking this over, it would seem to me that it would make more sense to have this template actually do some "work", and make placing in an article category actually worth something. I just looked over JEL classification codes. It would seem to me that each lettered section should be a separate sub-category. Not claiming to know much about the topic, but from I can see, that would definitely support the argument of usability for finding economics articles by JEL classification code. As it is now, it's just one big category with presumably economics-related stuff in it. I would guess that the additional coding shouldn't be too difficult. There is already a variable passed for the template, just use that for clarifying the category name as well. Something like: [[Categories included in the JEL classification code: {{1}}]] Of course you're going to have a bunch of subcats to "create". And each should probably have {{Wikipedian category|tracking = yes|container = yes|hidden = yes|description = Some text}} - I'm going to drop a note about this discussion at: WP:CFD. - jc37 17:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's fine to assume that everyone who reads an economics article knows JEL classification codes in which the article may be situated. But they don't. And readers may find it useful in the same way that a Google scholar search can be. It is used throughout professional econ journals for classifying books and articles. It is map for the structure of modern economics. Categories are distinct from templates. The template is comparable to the chapter title in the table of contents for a book, not a subject index at the back of a book, which categories correspond to. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_2&oldid=1235088967"