Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 27 July 29 >

July 28

[edit]

Template:Notable Gujarati writers

[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 already merged Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Notable Gujarati writers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Gujarati writers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Notable Gujarati writers with Template:Gujarati writers.
Don't see why we need 2 of these. — Lfdder (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2013 (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:Ga.legis

[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 after replacement. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ga.legis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

overly complicated template which is used to either (a) generate content, (b) generate an infobox, (c) generate an sbox, (d) generate a floating header. I see no reason why the typical system used by all other states won't work here. I could see having a simple sidebar to connect all the articles, but no need to repeat the information (e.g., the infobox or committees) in multiple articles. nor is there a need for information not directly related to the legislature to appear in the assembly article. Frietjes (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I certainly disagree on all points. For example: I don't understand what could be "overly complicated" about adding {{Ga.legis}} to the top of the page to generate an infobox; and I'm not at all clear on what information you are referring to that you suggest is not related to the topic? The Governor's name could be argued as tangential but the utter rest is directly related. Normal editing still applies; too. As in: we could have talked on a talkpage to settle discrepancies. or an editor can follow the advice generated at the bottom where it says "This article about a legislative committee of the U.S. state of Georgia is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."

    There's nothing but content and intent separating the usefulness of placing {{GeorgiaUS-legislative committee-stub}} an extra space below the page bottom, from placing {{Ga.legis}} at the page top—other than wp:"I don't like it", which I'm hearing loud 'n clear—though I'm "liking it", and using it.

    There's an awful lot of effort vested in creating this article series (about 70 articles so far and others planned) to have one's feigned bewilderment about a template's useability go unmentioned. Frietjes, you've got a pretty "<redacted>" manner of collaborating, in my opinion; you didn't even bother with the courtesy to notify me of this discussion! or try any manner of cooperation to reach a better end. It's a darn shame too; seeing all your skills reserved for this place! I'll withdraw from editing any further on the legislature series of articles; giving deference to this discussion, and the sheer statistics at play—placing my efforts in peril! :) John Cline (talk) 06:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; and as redundant, confusing, unhelpful and non-standard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 14 July 2013 (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) 22:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for re-listing this. I've redacted the foolish prose I had used to no profit. I hope this discussion closes without deleting this effort of mine. I am more than willing to work with anyone to alleviate concerns. I do get slightly taken aback when the smallest courtesy is omitted in favor of an assumption that you know all of the relevant facts. I don't see having the relevant facts as being possible when no need was seen to ask, or discuss anything. one reason I developed this template is because the Senate Seal file has a white frame around it that clashes with the greyish backgrounds that every infobox uses. I felt the white background was an improvement. I'd like to get back to working with this article series. And I'd be glad if someone did collaborate with me to help improve my efforts. Frietjes, I like to ask you to withdraw this, and you and I can talk and fix problems. I just think there are many ways to alleviate whatever you are seeing as a problem; that doesn't require deletion. Cheers :) John Cline (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2013 (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) 22:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is overly complicated. Straightforward information such as the the members of a committee are buried inside a template rather than being plainly available in the article source. This makes it difficult for the average editor to update as they need to chase through templates to edit article content. -- Whpq (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I had imagined it easier to maintain and harder to vandalize using this semi-protected template. The names of committee members is not a fact that often changes and after a general election, updating the template would update the articles as well. Nevertheless, I don't own the articles and if any editor wanted to substitute the content I can't imagine warring over it. My efforts on this series ceased when this discussion began and I take notice that hardly a thing has accomplished since. I do hope that someone will emerge to maintain the accuracy of this series because I can practically guarantee it will not be me. Perhaps it is worth noting that the template was not considered a final product and improvements were welcome and planned. Deletion simply did not fit the near or long term goals I was working to address. I wasn't able to get any collaborative input other than to suggest deletion as the best manner of improvement. I suppose a case can be made to delete all of the committee stubs; They are after-all rather complicated. :) John Cline (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2013 (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:Alaska Nanooks men's ice hockey roster

[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, as single used templates. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alabama–Huntsville Chargers men's ice hockey roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Alaska Anchorage Seawolves men's ice hockey roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Alaska Nanooks men's ice hockey roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Air Force Falcons men's ice hockey roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Army Black Knights men's ice hockey roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Boston University Terriers men's ice hockey roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bowling Green Falcons men's ice hockey roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Canisius Golden Griffins men's ice hockey roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Connecticut Huskies men's ice hockey roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cornell Big Red men's ice hockey roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Denver Pioneers men's ice hockey roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ferris State Bulldogs men's ice hockey roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Holy Cross Crusaders men's ice hockey roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Lake Superior State Lakers men's ice hockey roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Michigan Wolverines men's ice hockey roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Minot State Beavers men's ice hockey roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Niagara Purple Eagles men's ice hockey roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Notre Dame Fighting Irish men's ice hockey roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Wisconsin Badgers men's ice hockey roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2009-10 Bowling Green Falcons men's ice hockey roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2009–10 RIT Tigers men's ice hockey roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no longer needed after being merged with the article. Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, these are not navboxes that are being discussed here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2013 (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) 22:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically the edit history would still exist for admins to view. You could just ask an admin to get the info if you wanted it. That being said there are better resources for such information such as hockeydb.com which lists the rosters of pretty much every North American hockey team and would be easier to go through than searching through edit histories. -DJSasso (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically, for those of us in non-admin land, once things are deleted, they're gone forever. And my main point being that the information that exists now is already Wiki-fied. Going back to hockeydb.com would involve recreating tables from scratch, which, IMHO, is a waste of time if it's already been done once before. Just sayin' Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are saying and can appreciate it. But if you look at the history of most of these they were never actually updated or up to date. So they probably wouldn't be all that helpful anyways, but Frietjes suggestion is an option. Somewhat surprised we actually have roster lists for university teams to be honest because we have a hard time keeping hockey at that level updated. -DJSasso (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • should be easy to move each template to a subpage of the article talk page, if someone wants to access the template history, would also be useful for saving attribution. Frietjes (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2013 (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:Saugus River

[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) 04:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Saugus River (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Railway line template misused for a river.Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2013 (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) 22:36, 28 July 2013 (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:Billboardcomedyalbums

[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, unused and only links three articles. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The articles linked on this template have been merged into one article, therefore this navbox no longer serves a purpose. Neelix (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2013 (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:Parliament of Scotland former constituency infobox

[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) 20:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Parliament of Scotland former constituency infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox constituency}}; only three transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:52, 28 July 2013 (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 Scotland council area

[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 rewrite to call {{Infobox settlement}}, and feel free to renominate if you still would like it deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Scotland council area (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}} (for which it could perhaps be a wrapper). Only 32 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral for now. I have not used this infobox much and it is a bit clunky. However I'd like to be assured that the proposed alternate would/could work better- perhaps with an example. The logic of "Only 32 transclusions" is absurd - there are only 32 Scottish local authorities, so it would be less misleading to say that it is currently at its maximum possible use. Ben MacDui 18:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I created an IS wrapper version (test cases here) and it seems to work pretty well, though some adjustments will have to be made when it is substituted, such as placing the web address in a separate field.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2013 (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 Scottish island

[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) 05:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Scottish island (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox islands}} (for which it could perhaps be a wrapper); 336 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is not redundant to Infobox islands, which does not have various fields which are specific to Scottish Islands. These include: Grid reference (for Ordnance Survey maps), Gaelic name, Norse name, meaning of name, Area rank, population rank etc. Ben MacDui 18:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The generic infobox has some of these (e.g. |native_name=; |rank= for area rank), there's no reason why others can't be added, if needed. |etymology= would certainly be a useful addition there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you provide an example? I cannot see any advantage in this proposed change. Ben MacDui 18:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Example of what? The advantage of removing redundant templates is that it reduces the maintenance overhead; and standardises appearance and parameter names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • An example of an infobox for a Scottish island, using the said generic infobox, that does not lose important information. What exactly is this maintenance overhead? I am not saying it doesn't exist, but that I am quite unaware of it. I have very little interest in standardisation for its own sake, diversity is, for me, something to celebrate unless it can be shown to create genuine problems. I simply don't know of any such difficulties. Ben MacDui 18:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • None of us are "interested in standardisation for its own sake". As for maintenance overhead, consider the recently-added |alt= parameter for infobox images. We had to add that to thousands of templates (not all are done, probably). The more redundant templates we remove or merge, the less work there is to do the next time a similar improvement comes along. Any example using the generic template, before missing parameters are added to it, would be incomplete; it's a "chicken and egg" situation. There are places in life or diversity, but standardisation of Wikipedia template presentation, markup and parameters aids our readers and our editors; the latter as Chris explains below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I wonder if you asked any of the users of this parameter if they felt the need for it? No-one is compelling you to edit thousands of templates. All you are really saying is that you would find this merger more convenient for yourself. My problem is that when these meta templates are created they become the property of the very small number of editors who know how to code them, some of whom really don't care that much if editors of actual articles can't get what they want. It's a situation I'd prefer to avoid myself. Ben MacDui 07:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • You're beginning to show a distinct lack of good faith. This isn't about my personal convenience, but ensuring that exactly the problem you identify, of knowledge of how a template is coded being limited, is reduced by having shared, more widely understood templates replace niche examples. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's not your good faith I am questioning but rather your ability to empathise with my point of view. In your position I might be saying something like - "I understand your caution but here in my sand box is the infobox for Shetland using Infobox settlement - it only took me ten minutes. It will take me a bit longer to come up with a replacement for Infobox Scottish island, but it shouldn't be hard..." or similar, rather than trying to persuade me that my being inconvenienced is less important than your being inconvenienced. I have been here before and the outcome was totally unsatisfactory from my point of view. Once bitten.... Ben MacDui 18:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether it's immediately redundant or redundant with minor alterations to the proposed merge target, there can be little doubt that it's duplicating effort to have a separate template here. I should have finished the job in 2009; it's time to do so now. Editors of islands should not have to care about differences in supported syntax depending on what side of a national border said island happens to lie on. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't follow your logic. When you say that "Editors of islands should not have to care about differences in supported syntax", who is it that is inconvenienced, and in what way? Given that both already exist, where is the duplication of effort? I am not aware of any such problems and wonder where they exist. Can you provide diffs? I can certainly say that this nomination is an inconvenience however. Ben MacDui 17:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who wishes to edit articles on both Scottish islands and non-Scottish islands is inconvenienced. We cannot un-spend the duplication thus far, but we can ensure that no more effort is wasted in duplicating future style or content changes. Just to be clear here, I'm more than happy to do the required work to merge these myself; the vast majority of the heavy lifting in that regard has already been done. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how large this quantity of editors is. At a guess the total number of editors using the existing Scottish infobox is probably about half a dozen. I suspect the dialogue on this page already significantly exceeds the alleged inconvenience to all others combined. Of course a major advantage that the Scottish infobox has for me is that, despite its growing complexity as a piece of code, I can fix it if things need changing. It doesn't happen that often but we have just had a census and sooner or later new information will be needed. You are offering to be helpful, and I appreciate that, but what I remain unconvinced about, is that such a merger improves things for the people who actually have to use the infoboxes in practice. I ask again - from who have you received complaints? Ben MacDui 20:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We need as many editors as possible to be familiar with working with infoboxes. This means the barrier to working with them has to be as low as possible. Every time a template is forked to have its own layout and parameters makes that a little bit more difficult. I appreciate that it's easier to add features to a forked template because one doesn't have to raise editprotected requests or worry about thousands of edge cases, but at the same time this means that every improvement made has to be copied across to the other template manually, and this introduces hordes of gotchas when people expect something to work and it doesn't. It's worth noting that the template's current complexity is actually significantly lower than when it was a hand-written wikitable - if it were turned into a wrapper it would be even simpler. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the point you are making but as:
a) you have been unable to suggest any instances when an editor has found using this simple infobox difficult or contentious;
b) that almost all Scottish islands that need infoboxes already have them;
c) that islands are fixtures with more-or-less permanent features needing descriptions in an infobox and it is unlikely that new and exciting geographical parameters will be invented regularly that need to have hard-coded information provided for them;
my assumption is that making life easier for editors using the device is therefore not the issue here. As I mentioned to Potw above, I interpret what you are saying as that removing this helpful infobox might make your life a bit easier, and making it harder for editors of articles in the process is of secondary importance to you. That’s not my position. Ben MacDui 17:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC) PS Sotto voce: It's very quiet in here. One almost misses the great debates of yesteryear - but such, I fear, is the fate of an ever-expanding wikiverse.[reply]
I'm arguing from the general principle rather than due to a specific anecdote regarding this particular template (I wasn't the nominator, and my preferred approach would have been to simply rewrite it without discussion had I been thus inclined). I could point you at plenty of examples in my talk archives of editors getting confused because they couldn't get an infobox to work properly due to it being a fork. But regardless, the likely outcome here is that the template will be kept pending someone actually putting in the work to make it compatible with its ostensible parent, which is precisely where we'd have eventually gotten regardless of this discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Grid reference (for Ordnance Survey maps)
has native name but Scottish has Gaelic name, and Norse name. Don't know what 'native name' would be in this context (the Scots language name would be the 'native' name presumably but there are very few, if any legitimate examples that are not the actual name) and candidly 'native' does not sound very PC.
meaning of name
Population rank. Population rank also has an "out of 93 feature" - which gets amended for each census. We also need a note for the infobox as the NRS have just added a new 'category' of occasionally inhabited islands.
gaelic pronunciation
There seems to be no references parameter.
Better designed seems rather subjective. Better designed for who? Frankly there is some clutter in the Scottish infobox which seems to serve no obvious purpose but as it was added by the nominator he will no doubt be able to explain.
I have some other questions about the functionality of the generic box - can a lot of the clutter Scots islands don't need e.g the big sections on 'country', which is redundant be suppressed, 'ethnic groups' ditto, and what on earth is an 'official website' - I know of no such thing in a Scottish context. There are others but I have to dash. What a shame to waste so much time on such a non-productive discussion. I have 150 infoboxes to fill in with new census information, we have an editor trashing hundreds of Scots geography articles with a POV-obsession, and fewer and fewer editors to do the actual work - yet here we are. Ben MacDui 08:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If OS grid ref is needed, use |coordinates=. |Native_name= can take two or more values, using {{Plainlist}} and {{lang}}. I have added |population_rank= and |etymology= to the generic template. |pronunciation=, if needed, can be added too. References should be in the body, not the infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References in infoboxes are often required for GA and FA. Ben MacDui 17:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC) PS There are c. 22 Scottish island GAs, about 2/3rds of the global total for islands, 8 out of 9 island FLs are Scottish and at a quick glance the only true islands I see at FA are the 3 Scottish ones, (unless you count Isle of Portland) so its perhaps not surprising you have never come across this issue before.[reply]
Its interesting that you start off by claiming redundancy, and only when the lack of such is pointed out in detail do you bother to amend the generic template. That too me, is the problem in a nutshell - if the existing template goes I will be left with a situation where I don't understand the syntax and those who do, don't understand the issues. I also remain concerned about the challenges raised you don't bother to reply to and I don't know what "using {{Plainlist}} and {{lang}}" is all about either - but don't worry, I'm only an editor and either way I don't intend to use the generic box. Ben MacDui 08:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are not bound by the idiosyncrasies of GA & FA reviewers. Unless I'm mistaken, the MoS says references should go in the body, not the infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, with the greatest of respect, you may not be so constrained, but those of us who present articles at FAC and GAN have to interact with the reviewers who take the trouble to participate there. You may be right (although at a quick glance I don't see anything obvious about this) but MOS is an ever-changing guideline, and it is trumped by WP:V any day of the week. Besides, there may well be information in an infobox that you wouldn't want in the body of the article. Knowing that an island is the 56th most populous is (I think) useful but repeating this in the text might seem like overdoing things. Ben MacDui 16:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and question - arguably off-topic but I think it has some relevance to this debate. The 2011 census has created valuable new information but it is a significant amount of work. 100+ islands need amending, then the same information will need to be posted into the main list, then the same information is needed at the various subsidiary lists (see Template:Islands of Scotland Geography section) plus at least one and arguably two tables at WP:HOLM. That means entering the same data four or more times. The odds are that I won't be here to undertake the required revision in 2023, and perhaps no-one will be so motivated - is there any way, theoretically or in practice, to put the data into a single wiki-database that could do automatic updates? Ben MacDui 18:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood and thanks. Ben MacDui 08:07, 27 August 2013 (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 England region

[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) 05:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox England region (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}. Only 8 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep it won't help usability if this specific template is replaced by a generic one. On the contrary, it will make the infoboxes on the articles overcomplicated for the average user, making wikipedia a step more inaccessible, what wikipedia really wants tot avoid--78.22.180.69 (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, could potentially be replaced by {{infobox settlement}} or {{infobox UK place}}. I would say keep until I see a demonstration showing the conversion to either {{infobox settlement}} or {{infobox UK place}}. as pointed out by the IP, loads of generic fields is not generally a good idea since they are difficult to parse by DBpedia. Frietjes (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The usability of the interface will be significantly hindered if this template is removed from the encyclopedia. There is absolutely no reason that this template needs to be deleted, containing several maps and images already installed within the template, thus why should we be required to insert the map displaying the region when we already have another template? In addition, it does not violate any specific policy or guideline of the encyclopedia. Unique parameters, such as status, development, parliament, administration, etc., will not be inclusive on the generic settlement template. Perhaps it may be converted into a wrapper template for {{Infobox settlement}}, but I do not support deletion. TBrandley (T • C • B) 16:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't quite see what the problem is here that we are looking to resolve or that deleting a more specific and focused format is of any benefit to readers or editors. Plus, as a side-point, the fact that this is currently being considered for deletion means that the pages on which the infobox is currently used are being disfigured, eg this one. Which kind of suggests to me that this discussion should be closed asap. N-HH talk/edits 11:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, this is just another pointless country-specific template.--Nero the second (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've converted the infobox on West Midlands (region). Where are the duplication; the overcomplication; the confusing generic fields; the lack of focus? Once we convert the remaining seven transclusions, do we anticipate needing to create any more? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, templates with such a low transclusion count should be not kept without a very good reason; from looking at the converted template on the West Midlands page there is no loss of functionality, and the infobox for all intents and purposes is equivalent to the one it replaced. I don't see how the current version is more specific or focussed on anything, as has been argued.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2013 (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 Fire and Rescue

[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) 04:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK Fire and Rescue (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox fire department}}. Better to internationalise the generic template than to maintain country-specific variants. Only 62 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep - the proposed alternative is an American info box, crammed full of American terms. The rank names, unit names, and even some appliance names, simply don't apply in the UK, where we have our own versions. The current UK template works fine for UK fire brigades. We don't have fire "departments" over here, so a "fire department" info box doesn't work. Classic case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Timothy Titus Talk To TT 17:13, 18 August 2013 (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 intragovernmental bank

[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) 04:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox intragovernmental bank (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox central bank}} or a more generic template. Only four transclusions, relating to one country. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 28 July 2013 (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 Renaissance fair

[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) 20:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Renaissance fair (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox recurring event}}; only 20 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:48, 28 July 2013 (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:Cruz Azul

[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) 04:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cruz Azul (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has several red links. Its use is pointless if most of its articles do not exist and do not have significant coverage. MicroX (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - by my counting this templates navigates between 8 related articles - and some of the redlinks are notable, just haven't been created yet - so it certainly serves a purpose. GiantSnowman 16:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per GS, this is a perfectly normal navbox for a notable professional club. I have trimmed some of the cruft in there, like links pointing to external youtube vids rather than WP articles, redlinks to clearly non-notable subjects and links to "rivalries" that did not actually link to any actual content about such a rivalry. Fenix down (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2013 (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:US2012Election YT Parodies

[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, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US2012Election YT Parodies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Ridiculously overly specialized, unconnected subjects. Otterathome (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2013 (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:HNK Šibenik squad

[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) 03:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HNK Šibenik squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is template for squad who not competing in professional division. Delete - the club is competing in Croatian third division. – Jolicnikola (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Jolicnikola (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2013 (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:United States men's national soccer team roster

[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) 03:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States men's national soccer team roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template. If people want to look at the USA roster, they can view it on United States men's national soccer team. And another thing.... This is not the USA roster. – Michael (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2013 (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:Greece Squad 2002 Euro U-21

[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) 03:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greece Squad 2002 Euro U-21 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is youth competition only. This navbox is unnecessary. It should be deleted per here and numerous previous discussions. Banhtrung1 (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:47, 28 July 2013 (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/2013_July_28&oldid=1136430274"