Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 3

< October 2	October 4 >

October 3[edit]

Template:List of Arcade Video Games Navbox[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 after multipage table of contents was merged with the header template, and further discussion appears to be happening elsewhere. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of Arcade Video Games Navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no longer needed after being merged with {{List of arcade video games header}}. Frietjes (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page and not at the top like they are now. Far from deleting this template, the template should be returned to its former state and a consensus reached before treating a merge as final. Op47 (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

except that in this case this is a table of contents, spread over dozens of articles due to the split of the parent article. the standard is to use Template:A-Z multipage list which has hundreds of transclusions. Frietjes (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to this standard please. In any case, my point above still stands. All of the articles that I have seen have placed their navigation templates at the bottom, and this is supported by WP:NAV. It may be the case that rather than use the the long winded code that I have used that Template:A-Z multipage list may be better. Even then I would still prefer the transclusion to be on a single template like this rather than on the individual sub pages, so that if in the future it needs to be changed then it is only in one place rather than 26. Op47 (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sure, the standard is Template:A-Z multipage list, and the new system does use a single template, which is the header template. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are getting at cross purposes here, Template:A-Z multipage list is a template. To say "the standard is to use ..." implies that there is something stated in a guideline or a policy. I called it a standard because at work we call the equivalent of guidelines standards and it was just instinctive, sorry to confuse you. The reason why I am concerned is that it takes a lot of work to change articles like this and there are a large number of articles that require this. I would just prefer to be certain that there would be no grounds for changes in the future. The only guideline that I know of is WP:NAVBOX. It states that this sort of thing goes on the bottom. As I said above, the template is obviously jolly useful and I probably will use it regardless. Op47 (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a navbox goes at the bottom, the table of contents goes near the top, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists). Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Frietjes, I looked on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists) and it says no such thing. I searched for top, bottom and navbox. I know it seems petty and pedantic, but it takes about 2 hours to split an article, it really needs to be done properly. Before doing this article, I checked the guidelines for WP:NAVBOX and WP:LIMIT (and hence WP:SPLIT) and as far as I can see I followed those guidelines. Without a guideline then it is your opinion v my opinion. I am not trying to argue with you, but I would like the evidence so that if I am reverted by an editor later then I have something to show. Op47 (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(long_lists)#Generic_templates mentions Template:A-Z multipage list. again, this is a multipage table of contents and should be treated as such. Frietjes (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That still does not answer my question. You stated that this template should go at the top of the page. I have asked for the guideline that says that. You quoted Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists) and it does not say that. If there is in fact no guideline, then I think we need to have an RfC as this affects a large number of articles and users. Incidently, the section that you pointed to says that this is a navigation template. Op47 (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The table of contents header has better usability than the a NavBox at the bottom of the lists. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Salvidrin, the point is that the current guidelines that I read (WP:NAVBOX) state the nav box should go at the bottom of the page and do not make the distinction between a nav box and multipage table of contents. If we want to have a, well, professional looking encyclopedia then we need to reach a concensus and if needed alter the guidelines. This is not the forum to do that. Op47 (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per discussion above.

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:BullR[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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 19. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:14, 19 October 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:List of baronetcies in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom Navbox[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) 01:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of baronetcies in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom Navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no longer needed after being merged with Template:List of baronetcies in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom header. Frietjes (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page and not at the top like they are now. Far from deleting this template, the template should be returned to its former state and a consensus reached before treating a merge as final. Op47 (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

except that in this case this is a table of contents, spread over dozens of articles due to the split of the parent article. the standard is to use Template:A-Z multipage list which has hundreds of transclusions. Frietjes (talk) 21:10, 4 October 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 Korean song[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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Korean song (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Six transclusions, Korean songs use Template:Infobox single or Template:Infobox song. eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 22:51, 8 October 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 UniversitySystem[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) 01:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The only instance was replaced in this change. eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 23:09, 8 October 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 advertising[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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This infobox (currently 17 transclusions) can be merged with the more widely used Template:Infobox television advert, under the name of Infobox advertising. eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While this template is not widely used, its coverage is much more broad. It is designed to be used across all advertising media as opposed to this one which is designed solely for television. My counter proposal is to merge the Television advert template into the more broad Advertising template. After all, the TV Advert only has 64 transclusions. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I have updated this template with several new fields that allow it to be used in all forms of advertising articles. It would be better to use the Advertising template as the primary template. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge, no need for two templates when one will suffice. Frietjes (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge the more widely used template would be the wrong name to use for a radio advertisement or print advertisment -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 06:06, 4 October 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 Hill of Rome 2[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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Hill of Rome 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fork of Template:Infobox Hill of Rome. eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge Frietjes (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 22:51, 8 October 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 gurudwara[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) 01:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Two transclusions. Suggested replacements: Template:Infobox religious building or Template:Infobox building. eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, currently it's a cut-and-paste fork of Template:Infobox building. Frietjes (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 23:09, 8 October 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 Playboy Cyber Girl[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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Playboy Cyber Girl (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

15 transclusions, this infobox can be replaced with Template:Infobox model. eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it can. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 22:51, 8 October 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:FAI Underage League seasons[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. --BDD (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FAI Underage League seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-notable template for articles that fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. All five articles linked here are currently at AfD. JMHamo (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it looks as articles will be deleted/redirected, and therefore this template serves no purpose. Giant Snowman 11:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:24, 3 October 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 rail company[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) 00:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox rail company (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Infobox rail company with Template:Infobox rail.
From the documentation of Template:Infobox rail: "Infobox rail is used to create an infobox on articles about railway companies". Hence the two templates serve the same purpose, and should be merged. Infobox rail is by far the most common of the two (1803 transclusions v. 96 for rail company). eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Template:Infobox rail company, since Template:Infobox rail has significantly fewer features; however, there are certain features in Template:Infobox rail that are not in Template:Infobox rail company. It should be possible to incorporate some of these as they stand, but care will be needed with all parameters because there are not just conflicting names, but conflicting uses - |website= is different, for example; and one template expects the route map to be an image, the other expects an RDT. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Use Template:Infobox rail company "infobox rail" is a bad name for an RRcompany infobox. It could easily mean a rail line or a rail service. -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 06:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I tried simply replacing the infobox rail with infobox rail company in one of my articles, and it resulted in an empty box. This suggest we should not merge, unless we have a 100% effective automated tool for making the changes. Maury Markowitz (talk)
- As I noted above, care is needed with all parameters because there are not just conflicting names, but conflicting uses. When we close TfDs as "merge", it's rarely a case of using one template as a drop-in replacement for the other. What normally happens is that one template is altered so that invokes the other (not as a simple redirection). It may then be possible to task a bot with substing the template. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - So it will likely break all sorts of articles? And we "may" be able to fix it? And we wish to make this change simply because it offends a sense of technical correctness? Let us not forget that the Wikipedia is here to provide content, it is not a platform for meta discussions about how that content is best formatted in source code. The proposal here does absolutely nothing to improve the actual content, and it seems it is highly likely it will do the exact opposite. I re-affirm my opposition to this proposal. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - It will only break articles if you simply replace one template name with the other. That is not how template merges are done at TFD. See WP:TFD/H#To merge; those are the templates where a simple drop-in replacement will break articles. In fact, one of them did break a lot of articles in about November 2011 because somebody completely ignored the comments of Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 6#Template:Infobox Indian jurisdiction and tasked a bot with simply replacing Template:Infobox Indian jurisdiction with Template:Infobox settlement without regard to the fact that very few parameters were common between the two. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: On further study, the two templates are clearly intended for different purposes. For instance, rail company includes entires for passenger statistics in 2008 (???), while rail has entries for historical antecedents and mergers. To me, the former is for the operating company while the later is for the line itself, which are very different things and could not, and should not, be merged. For example, the Georgian Bay and Seaboard Railway easily falls under "rail", but was never a "rail company" and was owned and operated throughout by Canadian Pacific. "rail company" is clearly not the correct name of a template for this article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The TfD from a few weeks ago, which was for merging {{Infobox rail}} with {{Infobox rail line}} closed as "do not merge" - as I noted at the time, {{infobox rail}} is for rail companies, whereas {{infobox rail line}} is for individual lines. Others made similar comments. If we have three infoboxes - one for lines, one for companies, what is the third? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) It includes entries for passenger statistics in 2008, NR id, etc. because it's tailored to British TOCs. We have {{Infobox rail line}} for lines. The latter was probably intended for the line operator. — Lfdder (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge per Redrose64. — Lfdder (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – A rail company could operate several different railroads (for example, Metro-North Railroad and Long Island Rail Road are both operated by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority). Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 17:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Rail company organization and function is very complicated as you should expect from it's age as a base industry. There is about every company/corporate arrangement you can imagine under the sun in the industry, including hidden corporations... meaning, there are railroads established as short line railroads in the earliest days, that did little more as a corporation but build a line, then lease it to others. Amazingly, some of those still exist even though one believes them to be fallen flags--the corporation is still renting the trackage, still collecting from today's RR's that use the corridor. Point is this is a specialty area of knowledge. Let it be. If those in Wikiproject:Trains are using 2-3 templates, people not familiar with the intricacies of RR culture and practices ought let things be. // FrankB 23:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment dummy corporations and shell corporations are not unique to railroads, they are common in the world today. Infrastructure consortia are also common, that only operate one piece of infrastructure, like a toll-highway, a bridge corporations, or the EuroTunnel Corporation. -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merger is necessary if all articles of dummy rail corporations aka government rail corporations or shell rail corporations support the Infobox rail company template but since a lot of these articles including Asian rail companies' main and sub-articles don't support that template it's best not to merge the templates unless someone is willing to do the post-merger template replacement which will never be finished and it can be a pain in the butt. Kyrios320 (talk) 03:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maury Markowitz said it best. 184.1.103.93 (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Maury and FrankB. Caseyjonz (talk) 16:46, 7 October 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 PSL leagues[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) 00:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox PSL leagues (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The only instance was replaced here. eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obsolete. Giant Snowman 11:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 22:51, 8 October 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:Cinematográfica Águila[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) 00:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cinematográfica Águila (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navigational template for a production company, that does not have an article, contains two movie links and one director link. We do not have film navigational templates for production companies. Aspects (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 19:21, 3 October 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.