Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 31

< December 30	January 1 >

December 31[edit]

Two navbox wrapper templates[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) 05:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Navbox RL squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NavigationBox athletic conference (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CFB navbox was discussed on the 2011 November 28 and the outcome of that was delete. These two templates are very similar to {{CFB navbox}} and can be replaced with {{Navbox}}. WOSlinker (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, navbox does a better job directly. Frietjes (talk) 17:29, 4 January 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:Hero's Events[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) 05:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hero's Events (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template mainly includes red links to pages deleted through AfD consensus. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete defunct promotions company that itself is unlikely to meet WP:GNG (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hero's) Mt king ^(edits) 01:20, 1 January 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:Musicrationale[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) 05:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seemingly unused rationale template, covered by {{Non free use rationale audio sample}} in more detail. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

???? That template doesn't exist. What do you really mean? — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a dash missing, it should probably be {{Non-free use rationale audio sample}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:08, 31 December 2011 (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) 15:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete, old and unused. Frietjes (talk) 17:30, 4 January 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:GFDL photo only - not subject[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) 05:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GFDL photo only - not subject (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With the creation of {{photo of art}} this template is felt to be redundant. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]

Keep - This is used quite often and seems useful. I've encountered it a lot, seems good to have around...Modernist (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2011 (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) 15:08, 31 December 2011 (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:Cc-by-sa-3.0 photo only - not subject[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. Rcsprinter (orate) 17:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0 photo only - not subject (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With the creation of {{Photo of art}} this specific tag is felt to be redundant. Usage of this should be migrated in an appropriate manner. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is used quite often and seems useful. I've encountered it a lot, it's valuable and good to have around...Modernist (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2011 (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) 15:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep useful template.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2011 (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 Australian road[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) 05:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Australian road (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Infobox Australian road with Template:Infobox road.
Similar templates; the more specific one thus being redundant, once any unique fields are added to the generic version.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support—I believe all of the unique parameters have been added already. Any further necessary customization should be possible through the subtemplates at Template:Infobox road/doc/country. Imzadi 1979 → 11:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support {{Infobox road}} is what the rest of the world uses. --Rs chen 7754 17:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support an initiative towards the standardization of infoboxes for roads and highways. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before making any comment I would need to see some examples using existing data for Australian roads, and be assured that a bot has been developed and tested to make the transition as painless as possible. Downsize43 (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See Template:Infobox Australian road/testcases for the examples. Imzadi 1979 → 01:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, we will be converting the transclusions by hand, ensuring there aren't any problems. --Rs chen 7754 01:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're kidding? {{Infobox skyscraper}} was used in 2,932 articles and a bot was able to do all of them. IAR is only used in 369 articles, which would be child's play for a bot, provided IR can actually replace IAR. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - But you have to go through WP:BRFA, which takes a lot of time and paperwork. 369 articles isn't that much; we've converted ones with more transclusions by hand before. --Rs chen 7754 04:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: We've been down this road before (Template talk:Infobox Australian road#Infobox conversion proposal and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_9#Template:Infobox_Australian_road), the Template:Infobox road is already bloated and it isn't the same as the Template:Infobox Australian road as set-out by the Australian projects. Just because it is ok for you doesn't mean it works for Australian articles, next we will bw standardising spelling from AU to US. Bidgee (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Just because it is ok for you doesn't mean it works for Australian articles" - can you substantiate this? This infobox works for all the other countries of the world, why not Australia? --Rs chen 7754 04:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, someone forgotten the past discussions have they? Not a lot of project were happy with the forced changes made by the Roads project including the Irish. You have failed to address the past concerns, all you did is let the "dust" settle so you could try it again. Fix it and we will think about it. Bidgee (talk) 04:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - What's this, then? [1] --Rs chen 7754 04:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hardly anything like the IAR template and the IR template is more confusing, I suggest you take a look at the testcase again if you can't see the difference. Bidgee (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Readers benefit from a consistent layout across all road articles. Wikipedia is written for readers, not editors. --Rs chen 7754 16:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Often said but it's actually a specious argument. In order for readers to benefit, editors must be able to edit. When a template uses language that is alien to those who have to edit with it, it's easy to introduce errors that confuse the reader. This is where locale specific templates are superior and this has been proven previously. Which is more benefit to the reader, providing them with the correct information or making everything look the same, even if we include errors? Experience would show it's the former and that's why WP:CONSISTENCY is a redirect to the MoS and not a policy. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        "When a template uses language that is alien to those who have to edit with it" - but does Infobox road use alien language? To me, it just seems like you don't want to even try learning how to use Infobox road. Wikipedia changes; editors are forced to learn new templates and new software interfaces (I've been a Wikipedia editor since 2005, and we've been through several template and interface changes that have forced editors to relearn things). That's just how the world works (look at Microsoft). BTW, responding to the comments below regarding "terminus_a" - we can't say "start" and "end" or "from" and "to" because that's not, in fact, correct. Who is to say that the route starts at point A and ends at point B? Why couldn't it start at point B and end at point A? --Rs chen 7754 04:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        "but does Infobox road use alien language?" As it applies to Australian roads, yes it does. As has been said elsewhere, when Australians see terminus they immediately think "bus", or in places like Melbourne, "tram". Regardless, road isn't anywhere around. Start, end, from and to aren't the only other options. "End_a" and "end_b" are non-specific alternatives. Regardless of whether or not it's a start, end, from or to point, or a terminus, it's always an "end" of a road. End terminology is used widely in cabling of all sorts because of this and can even be adapted in unusual cases where there are more than two ends, such as the Xbox 360 component cable, which has 3 ends. I'm not sure whether there are any roads like that, but it doesn't matter. The beauty of "end_x" is that it doesn't force anyone to use terminology that seems completely illogical to them. Using terminus is bad as allowing only distances in miles or forcing Americans to learn the metric system. Fields should cater for all editors. --AussieLegend (talk)
        The documentation explains perfectly clear what terminus means in respect to this infobox. If someone enters bus terminals, they shouldn't be editing (not enough common sense). To quote the documentation, which was only slightly expanded from when Infobox road WAS created for the US, "terminus_a: this is where the route begins and, for U.S. roads, is either at the southern terminus or western terminus; terminus_b: where the route ends, in accordance with the guidelines set forth with terminus_a". Nothing more is needed in that respect, and the term is not US centric, its just not common language in Australia. Terminal means "end", in all variations of English. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        "Terminal means "end", in all variations of English." - If "terminal" was the word used in the template then that may be relevant, but it isn't. The word used is "terminus", which as a different meaning. Interestingly, while Rschen7754 says "we can't say "start" and "end" or "from" and "to" because that's not, in fact, correct", the instructions for terminus say:

terminus_a: this is where the route begins and, for U.S. roads, is either at the southern terminus or western terminus

terminus_b: where the route ends, in accordance with the guidelines set forth with terminus_a

Hmmm, there seems to be a slight inconsistency there. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wounder if the Roads project have bothered to look at an Australian dictionary? Just because we spell differently doesn't mean that every meaning is the same as US or British English. Bidgee (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Inappropriate canvassing has taken place: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] --Rs chen 7754 04:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And responded to as such: [8] --Rs chen 7754 04:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - oh for fucks sake, whats wrong with messaging those whom were part of the last discussion seeing that the Roads project failed to notify the project and those whom were part of the last discussion. Also it is the Road project's goal is to fly under the radar and have the template deleted so they can have the template set out to how they want it and not the Australian project. What do you expect? You do the very same thing again and you expect me not to be pissed off? You could have discussed it but no, you did nothing. Bidgee (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is not inappropriate canvassing, it is just Bidgee notifying editors who participating the last time we had this exact same discussion. A cynical person might be of the opinion you're just cross that your attempt to slip this deletion through on the sly once more has been foiled again. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
      - From WP:CANVASS: "Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages."
      - "In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send an undue number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. For example, it would be votestacking to selectively notify a disproportionate number of "Keep" voters or a disproportionate number of "Delete" voters." --Rs chen 7754 04:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        As I've already indicated, just below your response, Bidgee was just notifying Australian editors, since nobody else ever seems to bother to do that when they want to screw around with templates that are directly relevant to the Australian project. The frustration that was evident in his notifications was as a result of that. As I also pointed out, the last time somebody tried to screw around with this template he failed to notify the project first. That it happened again is doubly frustrating to all involved. I'm sorry if that has affected the master plan, but Bidgee was doing the right thing. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not inappropriate canvassing at all. Bidgee was just notifying Australian editors since we have a vested interested in this. We tend to get really pissed when nobody bothers to notify WP:AUSTRALIA about matters that affect us, especially since it happens far too often. After all, we generally know our roads and requirements better than most. The discussion referenced by Bidgee was started by an editor who didn't bother notifying WP:AUSTRALIA either, and he thought it was OK to go ahead with his changes because nobody was watching the template. It's just common decency to notify the project first, and it seems a bit sneaky to make this proposal at a time when most Aussies are off having a good time away from Wikipedia. You know very well that we like to be kept informed.[9] --AussieLegend (talk) 04:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does WP:AUSTRALIA have standards that mandate the use of {{Infobox Australian road}}? And, are they more than just WikiProject standards? --Rs chen 7754 04:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Does Wikipedia have a (site-wide, not a Road project's bias) policy that the IR template has to be used? Bidgee (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quite apart from the issue of why, if so, nobody was watching the template, I'm intrigued to know how you suppose (wrongly) that you know what I'm thinking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You do realise that I was talking to Rschen7754 don't you? --AussieLegend (talk) 12:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, that wasn't apparent; but in that case, how do you suppose to know what he was thinking? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, my reply was after his comment and you hadn't previously replied before me, so it should have been apparent. As for his thinking, it's fairly obvious from the link that I included. Did you see that? It was his post, not yours, which is apparent from the header information. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It was Andy Mabbett that made the initial nomination though, not Rschen7754, so when you refer to "making a sneaky proposal at this time", I would think that Andy was replying to that part of your comment. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I was clearly replying to Rschen7754's post about "Inappropriate canvassing". While I did express concern about the timing, I followed that by reference to a post made by Rschen7754.[10] I can see where Andy Mabbett might have assumed that the sneaky timing was a reference to him, but his question was "why, if so, nobody was watching the template, I'm intrigued to know how you suppose (wrongly) that you know what I'm thinking." The first part appears to be a reference to my "thought it was OK to go ahead with his changes because nobody was watching the template" comment, which had nothing to do with him at all. The second part appears to be a reference to the Rschen7754's post that I linked to. In any case, I hope he's less confused now. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Issues raised in last TfD have not been addressed. There is no Wikipedia policy which requires global standardisation, and Infobox Australian road is not redundant to Infobox road. The accusations of canvassing are ridiculous, as the originator has made no attempt to communicate with the Australian community involved in maintaining the articles and templates, which shows bad faith. Hell, someone notifying the template's creator is now "canvassing"? Wow. Just wow. Orderinchaos 04:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Or have they? Have you looked at the examples provided to see that IBR provides all of the functionality of the Australian infobox? Or are you voting with your emotions? --Rs chen 7754 04:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look at the Hume Highway one in the testcases - there is a heap of missing information. Orderinchaos 04:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Such as? I'm not seeing it. --Rs chen 7754 04:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - What on earth does "primary destinations" even mean? How does "northwest end" or "southeast end" cope with ring roads or roads which change direction or are discontinuous? Where is, in fact, anything that tells me where the road goes from or to? These are actually fairly basic issues. Most of the people I talk to are readers, not coders or geeks, and they want to know the basics in an infobox without having to figure it out themselves. Orderinchaos 04:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Loop roads and discontinuous roads are supported in {{Infobox road}}; it's fully documented. See U.S. Route 2 in Michigan (now a FA) and M-185 (Michigan highway) (also a FA) for examples. "Primary destinations" can be changed. --Rs chen 7754 04:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Right... And "terminus_a"?? Terminus in Australian English is a *bus* terminus. I can fully foresee how this sort of American English usage is going to create standards hell for those Australian editors that are left trying to maintain the articles. I suspect, however, that your global agenda is so one-eyed that you don't care - hell, you tried this on on a public holiday period thinking it would sneak through, and even tried to accuse someone who followed point III of "Listing an article" under TfD notifying the creator and maintainers (given that you failed to) as "canvassing". There are new lows yet to be explored in this debate, I am sure... Orderinchaos 04:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't start the TFD. Pigsonthewing is actually an editor that said "roads editors" have fought with over the last 6 months... (long story). Canada has been using {{Infobox road}} for years now; Floydian is actually a Canadian editor. --Rs chen 7754 04:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The Canadian point is a complete distraction - they use some features that Australians or British would readily recognise as American English such as some word choices ("primary destinations" is something that only a North American could think up, seriously!) and the "-ize" spellings. Orderinchaos 05:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        None of the North American articles use it. "Primary destinations" is actually a UK/NZ/India term. If you don't want it, we can change the words. (The US blocks the field out entirely; I think somewhere else they call it "Cities"). --Rs chen 7754 05:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        (That's even more bizarre - N.Am. English used exclusively in areas which don't use it!) Well, the problem is that "via" doesn't work, because it has been denied its logical place in the infobox - near the top, so people know where the road actually goes - and shifted to the bottom. It defies any sort of process-order thinking to have it at the bottom, as that's not where a key piece of information should be. I mean, come on, the Hume Highway testpad doesn't even tell me it's one of the major Sydney-Melbourne routes and goes near Canberra until more than a screen down and I certainly wouldn't get that impression from the info there. IAR has it right there. I am partially visually disabled so I had the needs of users other than 20/20 vision fully in mind when I positioned the fields. Orderinchaos 05:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Furthermore, {{UK motorway routebox}} contained the term "Primary destinations"; it's deleted now but you could probably find its usage in article histories in UKRD. As for the rest... it's a matter of personal preference, really. --Rs chen 7754 05:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The issues you raise would be more appropriate as suggested improvements to IR than reasons to keep IAR. this is a merge proposal; not a delete proposal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Orderinchaos: either substantiate your baseless "tried this on on a public holiday period thinking it would sneak through" accusations of mendacious behaviour in a report at ANI or an equivalent forum, or let others see them as the childish foot-stamping they are. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the previous 2 Tfd have not been addressed - see no reason to change now. Also since when is WP:AGF occurred in relation to this issue - at least notifying previous discussants would show some SatuSuro 04:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You should know by now that "global standardisation" supersedes good faith and in fact any other Wikipedia policy for these people :) They won't stop till they get what they want, it's about disempowering communities from making their own rational, informed choices for themselves or trying to improve on "bog standard". Orderinchaos 04:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - With all due respect, neither of you are observing WP:AGF here. --Rs chen 7754 04:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - As you sow, so shall you reap. Orderinchaos 04:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - WOW Rschen7754, so WP:AGF doesn't apply on your personal attack on us]? Bidgee (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Define "us" - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It should be obvious as to whom "us" is, which is the Australian project. Bidgee (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        So they have elected you as their spokesperson? Or are you only speaking on behalf of you, not us? Also... even if you were legitimately speaking for everyone, it's not a personal attack because its not directed at any particular person. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It's not a personal attack. I'm stating that you don't like people messing with your infobox, as is quite evident here. Of course, you're welcome to report it to the appropriate places (WP:WQA, WP:ANI) if you think it is a personal attack. --Rs chen 7754 04:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It was an personal attack on us, just because the Roads project think they have the power over every article on Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        To be fair, I think that Rschen7754 was doing the right thing by WP:AUSTRALIA, and Wikipedia in general, with that edit. Have a look at this discussion and the little edit war he had as a result of the edit. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No need for Australia to have its own template when {{infobox road}} works fine. Dough 48 72 04:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It may work for other projects but it doesn't with Australian road articles (roads/streets/freeways/highways ect) and us (editors in the Australian project) have stated what is needed before we will support it and have done since the very first deletion discussion but very little has been done. Bidgee (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What makes Australian road articles so different from (insert country here)'s articles? --Rs chen 7754 05:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Dl2000 (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - So what you are saying is that Australian roads are so vastly different from every other country's roads that they cannot share a common infobox. Do you have any evidence for this? --Rs chen 7754 02:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Have you read that page in its entirety? "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." Otherstuffexists can be a good reason in many cases, just as it can be a terrible reason in others. When the main brunt of the argument for a global infobox is consistency, otherstuffexists points TOWARDS merging. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Edit conflicts mean that comments made here are disappearing. Can someone with an actual computer try and fix it please? I was trying to respond to a comment by Rschen but it evaporated. Orderinchaos 04:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as more needless "standardisation" that does not improve the project and will force a WikiProject onto the bloated and unsuitable generic template against their will. Concerns raised at previous TfDs have not been adequately addressed to my mind. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Comments— "Primary destinations" isn't a North American term; it's actually a British term that's used in New Zealand and India plus other countries. There is the |cities= parameter that produces the "Major cities" label in the infobox that can be used instead of "Primary destinations". (The North Americans don't use "Primary destinations, in the US we only use counties and their equivalents along the route, leave cities to the prose of the article.) I don't see where there is any usage of "-ize" in the output, and if the documentation page is objectionable, it can be changed. As for insinuations that "Roads editors" were the ones that "tried this on a holiday period", well, I should think that Andy Mabett would be surprised to be called such since he's not an American, nor an active editor of "roads" articles. (In fact, he's pretty much fought with several of us for months now on other stuff...)
Previous concerns centered on the position of the name versus the marker graphics, and the "allocation" parameter. The latter was added, and the former is different for Australia versus the rest of the countries. There were some other comments about the links at the bottom of the infobox, but we pointed out that {{infobox road/browselinks/AUS}} controls that, a subtemplate that can be changed at any time by anyone.
Now as for notifications, you'll have to direct that to the nominator, Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) since he's the one that opened this nomination without consulting others. Yes, I had commented on User talk:WOSlinker about the coding, because I knew he had worked on it in the past. I had no timeline for starting a discussion in mind, just to get the coding in place to open one at a later date. Imzadi 1979 → 05:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "without consulting others" - This is a consultation; and there is a notice about it on the template and every article and other page using it, so please withdraw your false accusation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Template standarisation is a good thing. I have to ask what exactly is holding up the conversion? During the last TfD, the Australian editors were asked what changes were necessary to get their support. I will have to check the diffs, but I was under the impression that those changes were made. –Fredddie ™ 07:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think it would have been better to have further discussions at Template talk:Infobox Australian road put rather than at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion but since it's now here, I'll support it. The main points that were raised in the discussion over a year ago now have been implemented in Infobox road, which were the allocations option & having the road name at the top of the infobox, above the marker images. If terms such as Primary destinations, which is mainly a UK thing, are not suitable then other wording could be added. Or any other things which should be altered as well, just reply with the specifics and we can see what can be done. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator There is a deletion notice on the template, and thus every article and project or talk page on which it is transcluded. There is thus no need, much less a requirement, to notify any project or project members. Note that the roads project, and infobox project, were also not notified. Projects do not own templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Template standarisation is a good thing, but not if it is at the expense of pissing off a whole wiki-project, both projects should work together to work towards a situation where this template becomes redundant of its own accord, and as pointed out by WOSlinker above it would have been better to have further discussions at Template talk:Infobox Australian road rather than coming here with the wiki equivalent of "If you won't play with my ball, I will take burst your ball so you have to play with mine". Mtking^(edits) 11:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "pissing off a whole wiki-project" is no reason to avoid improving Wikipedia. I represent no wikiproject here. This merge nomination is asking everyone to work together to produce the best outcome. This is the forum for discussing proposals which affect more than one template, or affect more than one project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What would have been better would have been to casually drop in at WP:AWNB and say something like, "Hey, remember those things you wanted implemented in IR 16 months ago? Well, they're finally in. Have a look and tell me what you think". Then we could have discussed it in a more relaxed and less confrontational manner and you might have had more support when you finally came here. As I indicated above, it's common decency to involve those with a vested interest early in the process. A screw them, I'm allowed to do it attitude is rarely productive. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, we can sit here and worry about the "what-if"s all day long, or we can accept what happened and come to a decision. --Rs chen 7754 04:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see an issue with reminding people about demonstrating some common decency when they fail to do so. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Rename: I have changed my vote from oppose to rename. Template:Infobox road should be renamed Template:Infobox USA road. It is clear throughout this process that the template was designed USA roads. It is primarily used by USA roads. There appear to be no methods to get this template properly internationalised to not primarily be about US roads because other internationals were not "Australia should've gotten on the bandwagon a few years ago, then they would have had a chance to get this major of a revision." A new template can be created that is a properly internationalised that is suitable for non-American conditions. (For instance, it can allow for "loop roads" that circumnavigate the country, can be designed for places that have state and providence two letter designations that are the same, does not preference one country over the other, uses standard English that would avoid words like terminus which cause confusion.) The new template needs to be able to adequately address other places with states, such as Brazil, India and Nigeria, which despite sharing two letter codes with the USA are not given a way to use two letter state codes. Similar situations exist for other countries with states in that there is no adequate way for the template to be internationalised and they are not addressed. See Malaysia, Venezuela, Somalia, Burma, Colombia After the move is done and a new international template is done, it would be time to possibly discuss a merge with the Australian Wikiproject being properly consulted. --LauraHale (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you realize the person who said "Australia should get on the bandwagon" is not an American. –Fredddie™ 19:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whether or not they are living in the USA is largely irrelevant to the fact the template preferences the USA above other countries. I hope you realise that and will oppose this merge and support a rename of the general roads template to include USA because of the USA preferencing. --LauraHale (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, my support has strengthened because of what you have said. With 5–10 minutes to prepare the subtemplates, this template can support any location that has a ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country code. Full stop.–Fredddie ™ 20:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection[edit]

Comment We can sit here crying till the cows come home about what would've could've should've, but it didn't. This is here now, and so are plenty of editors. Opposing based on the procedure of the nomination will get your !vote discounted by any rational thinking closing administrator at this point; give a reason for not switching (since I can't find any in the "past discussions" that haven't been addressed in some way, aside from making the infobox standardized heading larger, which can't be done), or say what you want changed to win your support. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or, since there are obviously numerous concerns being raised that are bogging down this discussion, the nomination could be withdrawn and we could go back to the drawing board and sort out the problems before nominating it again. We don't need a merge discussion to actually incorporate Australian requirements into the template. There may be numerous editors here now, but how many of them actually understand the Australian road system? --AussieLegend (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's the thing. We're asking some (granted, not all) of the editors here what the problems are with the template, and all we're getting in response is, in essence, "It's awful and we don't want it, and you screwed this up and offended us." How are we supposed to work with that? --Rs chen 7754 08:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, that that is absolutely not true. Terminology issues have been raised (terminus and via for example) and we're being told relearn the template, documentation issues have been raised and we've been told "documentation is separate from the template", which it isn't. The simple fact is, if IAR was actually redundant to IR, we'd be able to swap to IR without any real concerns. It's not as it stands and the terminology and documentation needs to be fixed before any change from IAR is even considered. A good faith attempt at resolving the concerns needs to be made. Excuses for not doing so aren't acceptable. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that you cannot swap IAR with IR without any real concerns. Our readers simply don't care about the semantics the Australians are arguing. –Fredddie ™ 01:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They don't? How do you know this? Do you have the results of a poll or are you just assuming? --AussieLegend (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They don't care because they're not flocking to your articles. Since I can't find one on the list of popular Australian articles, I can determine that no Australian road article gets more than 570 hits on an average day. For what it's worth, all but the top 9 most popular WP:USRD articles would not make that list as well. Our most popular article, U.S. Route 66 ranks somewhere between Eric Bana and Kelly Preston. –Fredddie ™ 07:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The number of page views has nothing to do with whether or not people are concerned about the terminology used. That comparison is like saying 74.863% of smergles eat antelopes on Christmas eve wearing a tutu because the space shuttle program was cancelled. Quite simply, Australia has a lot fewer people than the US, so you'd expect fewer hits. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This. Australian English and American English are not the same. The following sentence is likely to be understood by many Australians (though it is quite silly) but unlikely to be understood by most Americans: "Put on your thongs as we're going to Maccas to play with the pokies for brekky, where we'll meet Acca Dacca and some sweet as rangas while eating some kanga bangas, and when we're done, we'll play some footy with Shazza and Bazza." The articles are about Australian roads, primarily to be read by an Australian audience. The articles need to use language that will be easily understood by that audience and where Australian editors are likely to use it. As for page views, New_Jersey_Route_122, New_Jersey_Route_124, New_Jersey_Route_147, New_Jersey_Route_154, New_Jersey_Route_172, New_Jersey_Route_181, 88_Olympic_Expressway, New_Jersey_Route_124 all have low page views. Oh, and ring roads are not appropriate for all roads. Many roads in Canberra have a start and and an end on the same road. Kosciuszko Avenue is an important road in Palmerston, Australian Capital Territory. The Infobox road would be completely unsuitable for this road. Which direction does it go? Where does it start? Where does it end? Beyond that, Template:Infobox road needs a statement like "|country=USA must also be set to avoid conflicts with other countries." Until the template is formatted to stop preferencing America over the rest of the world, this whole merge discussion is a non-starter in many ways.--LauraHale (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your sentences full of slang that is not official Australian English either has to do with this. |country=USA does not need to be set, neither do several other countries where the state or province parameter is enough. Since Infobox Australian Road doesn't use state as a parameter, there is no need to have anything but |country=AUS (But as an aside, note on the technical details page of the documentation "Every transclusion that uses the "type" parameter must use either "country", "state", or "province" as well. As an example, all U.S. Highway and Interstate Highway articles must have "country=USA" if they don't have "state="", so that should settle those fears). As for your comment on the unsuitablity of the template in handling the special roads Australia has (that none of the rest of the world does), its completely baseless because whatever method the current template uses could be adapted into Infobox Road. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"primarily to be read by an Australian audience" I find nothing to support that assertion in any Wikipedia policy, nor indeed in any precedent. Indeed, it seems directly contrary to our core values. Please either provide some evidence to support it, or realise that it must be be disregarded. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not fully convinced that IR is ready for Australian prime time yet, nor have previous concerns been completely addressed, although it does seem some improvements were made. Some work seems needed to improve the global support e.g. regional biases in the IR doc, where national state/province subdivision parameters are limited to US/Canada/Mexico. Australia states and territories could be added, but some ISO 3166-2:AU abbreviations conflict with US (e.g. WA = Western Australia = Washington) and Canada (e.g. NT = Northern Territory = Northwest Territories) thus will require careful testing to ensure proper disambiguation. On the other hand, the size of IR leads to a maintainability concern, that it may become too complex to safely accommodate regional variations - that could eventually drive things back to regional road templates. Dl2000 (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The |state= param does work for Australia but only when |country=AUS is set. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which concerns? The documentation is separate from the template and can be updated, but is not a valid reason to oppose the merger of two overlapping templates. The second issue you raise is a red herring, as the current Infobox Australian Road has no support for these states/territories as is. The third issue is addressed above by several users: We don't design the site for editors, we design it for readers. A template which improves the consistency across all road articles (as opposed to all road articles except those in Australia, where suddenly the style changes) benefits our readers. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "that could eventually drive things back to regional road templates." - that assertion is a bit ridiculous; the standardization of road infoboxes is a move that has been going on for over five years. The U.S. didn't even start with a unified infobox (it had over 50; never mind that there's only 50 states); in fact, I fought for at least a year against one. You can see Template:Infobox road/doc/conversions and consolidations for the gory details. --Rs chen 7754 21:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having spent the last 30 years writing software, both personally and professionally, I think I'm qualified to say that documentation is not separate from the template. Documentation is an essential part of anything that is supposed to be usable. |type= is a basic parameter and documentation for basic parameters is not a "nice to have". Documentation for a basic parameter is essential and, while |type= is documented at IAR, it is not documented at IR. Where I come from, lack of basic documentation would prevent even alpha release. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is documented: see Template:Infobox road/doc. All of the documentation is at that page; there's many different subpages for IBR and we don't want to split the documentation up among the hundreds of different pages. --Rs chen 7754 08:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is NOT documented. Template:Infobox road/doc says "type: the type of route the article is about. See this page for a list." The list, which I linked to above, doesn't exist. There shouldn't even need to be a subpage for that, the types, unless there are a billion (who knows - the page doesn't exist) should be able to be incorporated in the existing table. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmm. My apologies; I was under the impression type= was documented. There are a lot of types, which is why it's a separate link. I'll try to get the AUS documentation done today; ping me if I forget. --Rs chen 7754 17:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I've compiled a list of the types available to Australia. I believe it should be self explanatory. --Rs chen 7754 03:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Primary destination" and "via" are completely different animals in Australia, and probably elsewhere. A "via" location is on or immediately adjacent to the road, but may be a primary destination for only a small minority of road users, while a "primary destination" may be some considerable distance off the road, but will be a primary destination for a substantial number of road users. For example, primary destinations (other than Sydney and Melbourne) for users of the Hume Highway may be Canberra and Wagga Wagga. The importance of these destinations is usually recognised by their inclusion on road signs (see the Hume Highway article for a sign that includes Canberra as (Canberra). Downsize43 (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So this throws a wrench into Orderinchaos' claim that "("primary destinations" is something that only a North American could think up, seriously!" then. --Rs chen 7754 02:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not at all. The above is a comparison, we don't actually use "primary destination" as a road term in Australia. The Pacific Highway is a good example of why. Most of the "via" places that would become "primary destinations" are being, or have been, bypassed. The Sydney–Newcastle Freeway is a better example. None of the via locations has ever been a primary destination as that road was designed to bypass everything except the end points. If I drive from Sydney to my home via the shortest route, I drive along the Sydney–Newcastle Freeway, New England Highway and Pacific Highway to my primary destination which is not on any of those roads, although the Pacific Highway is only 800 metres driving distance away. "Primary destination" is only used for its dictionary meaning here and has no place in a road infobox. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The cities parameter in IR would be the equivalent I believe, but its not placed between the termini at the moment (but if that's what it would take to win some support I'm sure it wouldn't be an issue to remedy) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Cities" wouldn't be appropriate. Australia requires "cities and towns" or similar unless IR is only going to be used for roads that pass through the places listed in this article, since most locations are not cities by any long shot. "Via" fits the bill nicely and is the most appropriate term. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        And with a simple switch, "Major cities:" could read "Cities and towns:" for Australia. Imzadi 1979 → 08:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        "via" means "by way of"... does that not infer the road goes through the places listed? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It's possible to travel through a place without that place being an available destination. The Sydney–Newcastle Freeway goes straight through Minmi but you can't access Minmi from the freeway. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Why would you list a place that you can't access from the freeway? In either case, IR has provisions for all sorts of different place types (cities, towns, villages, municipalities, regions, districts, etc). It also places important intersections/interchanges between the two end points, which makes far more sense (those intersections can list the places they lead to). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Because you are travelling though the location, even if its village/town/city centre is no where near the highway. Example is the Coolac bypass which is located in Coolac even though the village is about three to four kilometres from the bypass and the only way to access it is via an exit or another example is the Hume Highway/Freeway in Albury and Wodonga. Bidgee (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        In the case of the example I gave, the Minmi exit is a major southbound exit into Newcastle. The exit, which is actually in the suburb of Cameron Park, a suburb of the city of Lake Macquarie, leaves the freeway just south of a point approximately 600 metres from Minmi township (which is in Newcastle) but you have to drive over 4km to get to Minmi itself. The northern end of the Sydney-Newcastle freeway is a roudabout in the suburb of Beresfield, although the freeway itself never nevers Beresfield. It ends at the edge of the roundabout, which is right on the border between Beresfield and Black Hill. This sort of thing is not uncommon, and is why via is used. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Why would Minmi even be listed then (unless it shows up on signs along the freeway)? You're definitely right in that it's not uncommon. I've worked with plenty examples myself. Most of the freeways in Ontario bypass all the major towns and cities along the route, and very rarely provide exits right near smaller villages. This is why it makes more sense to list the intersections where IAR currently has via. All the places that are connected by the highway or that the highway passes through should still be listed, but using "via" impart many meanings that don't seem to be consistent among the different entries listed under that via... sometimes the freeway passes through the place and provides exits, other times it goes several kilometres past it and the only way to get there is by then taking a local road. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said, Minmi is listed because the Minmi exit is a major exit into one of the two major cities that the freeway serves. The exit connects directly to the Newcastle Link Road, which is the major southbound entrance and northbound entrance/exit.32°53′27″S 151°35′59″E / 32.89083°S 151.59972°E / -32.89083; 151.59972 Somehow it's soon going to be the Newcastle end of the Hunter Expressway, which is currently under construction. It's one of the major road junctions in the Lower Hunter Region. While Minmi isn't the actual location of the Newcastle Link Road/F3 junction or the Minmi exit, it's one of the oldest and best known townships in the area, so it's used as a reference point, not only by locals, but by the RTA, which manages the road. By contrast, most people don't even realise Cameron Park exists as a suburb. Raymond Terrace is a place bypassed by the Pacific Highway but, unlike a lot of areas, the highway runs through a fairly substantial area of the town, which is also a significant junction as it provides access to Port Stephens, Newcastle Airport and areas of the Hunter Valley north of the Hunter River. However, Raymond Terrace is less than 10km from "Newcastle" and isn't listed as a via because the RTA doesn't see it as important and major road signs don't normally list it. It's strange but that's the way it is. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection 2[edit]

Suggestion When I generate a route card in Google maps it tells me: "Turn left on ABC Highway, go 200 Km, and turn right on XYZ Road". What I want to know is the name of the locality where the right turn is to occur, and the name of the locality to which XYZ Road leads. An Infobox that combined "Major Junctions" and "Primary Destinations" (including "off-highway" destinations) would be of far greater use than either of the current templates. For example, Sydney to Melbourne via Yass (with a Major Junction at Barton Highway) would become Sydney to Melbourne with a Major Junction at Barton Highway near Yass, leading to Canberra.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Downsize43 (talk • contribs)
- I think you're confusing an infobox with WP:RJL. --Rs chen 7754 05:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose: Oppose merging/deleting. Australian English does not use the word terminus. The Australian noticeboard was not properly notified. The proposed merged template looks cluttered. Roads here are not generally directional in a way an American or Canadian audience would understand them. Highway 1 (Australia) goes what direction again? And what is the major terminus? How about some long mining roads that are nicely terminating… no where? Plus, two failed attempts to get it deleted that failed, where people have said those issues have not been addressed, seem to be a good reason to fail it again. --LauraHale (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- FWIW, Highway 1 (Australia) has no infobox template currently. It seems to be a loop road; M-185 (Michigan highway) is an example of how to handle loop roads. The other points have been addressed above, and are largely irrelevant to the possible merits of a merger. --Rs chen 7754 09:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Typical sign and no, not a loop road. I can't begin to tell you how many of these signs are around bloody Canberra. (I can think of at least two signs that say exit for every major township in Canberra, which is confusing as hell because they are not at all in the same direction. And FWIW, still not seeing why a functional Australian template needs to be merged into a template that doesn't function for it, uses terminology the audience looking for it won't consider the norm, and why there is a need to globalise. Beyond that, comparing an American loop road in one state to a loop road around a country the size of Australia seems to confirm the proposed merger is a bad idea, because the local needs are clearly not being understood if you're making that comparison. --LauraHale (talk) 10:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you're going to bring an "example" of a road that doesn't work with Infobox road, then please at least bring an example that has the Australian infobox, so you can prove your point. Otherwise it's just a red herring. --Rs chen 7754 10:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Highway 1 is a road network not a loop, How can it be a "loop road" if Highway 1 is in Tasmainia? Bidgee (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        If we're carving out exceptions for certain types of roads, where Highway 1 (Australia) would not fall under a normal road infobox, it makes sense to keep this as we've established a pattern of having specific road infoboxes to suit local needs. I'd also like to see how roads like this one would be handled. :) Where is the terminus a? Where is the terminus b? What at the major junctions? :) Besides which, usability of coding has become a major issue… and the proposed userbox is really, really, really complex and does not appear to suit specific geographical needs for every nation. There appears to be a heavy reliance on Template:Jct, which is not standardised for Australia. Perhaps, that can be globalised a bit more? I think there is a tag for things that are US centric… The globalisation of the junction template is probably another good place to start before this template again gets a merge proposal. --LauraHale (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        If I recall correctly, {{Infobox road}} came well before {{Jct}} did. Jct is not necessary for Infobox road to work at all. Furthermore, there's several countries that use Infobox road just fine - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Countries for a list. --Rs chen 7754 18:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - (ec) The word "terminus" does not appear in the output of the template, and end_a/end_b could be aliased as alternate names for terminus_a/terminus_b as a matter of affecting the merger. A loop around an island, a metropolitan area or a country/continent is still a loop. What difference is there in having the infobox say "Loop around Mackinac Island" and "Loop around Australia"? Imzadi 1979 → 10:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At best it will provide readers with a less useful set of information than the present template, regardless of their country of residence. Downsize43 (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely false, just compare the available parameters in infobox road to the lack of parameters in Infobox Australia Road. The latter is a limiter of information. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IAR provides information that is required. The purpose of an infobox is to summarise key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.[11] --AussieLegend (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update end_a= and end_b= now are functional in Infobox road. --Rs chen 7754 19:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you've modified the template. made |country=USA a required component for all roads in the USA using the template, done a bot run and updated all the articles to reflect their USA status for roads in the USA? That's next. :) Let us know when this gets done. --LauraHale (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Sorry there mate! Can you also update the for |country=Brazil? States of Brazil has the standard Brazil state codes. AL = Alabama, AL = Alagoas. Can't wait to see this template internationalised properly so we can address the next set of issues related to this. :D --LauraHale (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a bot run was done to add |country=USA to all the USA road articles, would you then Support the infobox change or would you then find some other reason to Oppose? -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil doesn't use them, its roads are numbered on a national scale. The template should not be updated across over 10,000 articles over semantic nit-picking for the 370 articles remaining on wikipedia which do not use Infobox road. Australia does not divide its road by states, in jurisdiction or in its infobox. Any attempt to pursue this is a complete tangent and distraction. The US does have different roads with the same number in different states. Australia manages its road network on a national level, the states only very partially so, much more so on a state level. Australia should've gotten on the bandwagon a few years ago, then they would have had a chance to get this major of a revision. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not entirely true. Brazilian state highways, or at least our coverage of them, uses the consistent nomenclature of XX-YYY where XX is the state abbreviation and YYY is the number. Brazil's infobox subtemplates have been set up so you can set, for instance, |state=SP and |type=SP for São Paulo state highways. –Fredddie ™ 18:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there's 214 Washington articles, compared to 58 articles in Western Australia. Washington should get the state=WA type. --Rs chen 7754 19:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No country should "get" anything over another country. It should be possible to code so that state without country results in an error, or at least puts the article into a "Roads articles missing country" category. The documentation should include a generic statement along the lines of "if |state= is used, |country= must be used". --AussieLegend (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I repeat that there are over 12,000 articles that would need to be changed just to support < 400. Seems to me like you're just grasping at straws so you don't lose your beloved infobox here; this is ridiculous (WP:OWN). And your argument that "No country should "get" anything over another country" isn't quite valid; look at disambiguation. (Example: M25 motorway). --Rs chen 7754 20:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Are there other M25 motorways? --AussieLegend (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I thought there were. Try M1 motorway (note the hatnote at the top) --Rs chen 7754 20:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation and WP:COMMONNAME have nothing to do with coding a template. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm showing you that here we're definitely giving the UK preference over Russia, and over any other country that has a M1 motorway. And article names are more consequential than template coding. --Rs chen 7754 21:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are two, totally different things though. WP:COMMONNAME is necessary to distinguish between things that have the same name. Coding a template doesn't, or shouldn't, suffer from this, as it's possible to avoid the problem with the right coding. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not the only option here; it could be called M1 motorway (United Kingdom) and M1 motorway could be a disambiguation page. I recall there actually were a lot of fights over this a year ago. And can we at least agree that an article name is more consequential than template coding, which the average reader doesn't look at? (Note: there are probably more highways in Northern Territory than Northwest Territories; you probably could argue that NT should go to the former.) --Rs chen 7754 04:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Canada uses |province=NT, so there shouldn't be any issues for the essentially non-existent number of Northwest Territory articles. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Internationalisation matters. :) I'm reading the information for it. I'm looking at the template history. I guess, at this point, given the US centric nature of the template and that no one is trying to make the template international, Template:Infobox road should probably be renamed Template:Infobox USA road. The template preferences the United States at the expense of other countries by defaulting to the USA, and putting other countries on a lower tier. Until the American preferencing over internationalisation is fixed, yeah… not really acceptable to me to support a merge. :) --LauraHale (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at pages like Template:Infobox road/doc/country - Infobox road was rebuilt in 2010 for international support. It is used in over 50 countries. Also, Floydian's comment isn't correct as I suspected, because of how Template:Infobox road/meta/mask/country is coded. --Rs chen 7754 11:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't seen that one before... However it could be easily changed to submit what the name of the parameter used was through and only select Canada when NT is entered as a province. All pointless though, since infobox road doesn't need to support Australian states (and in the case of any Australian road that crosses a state line, the template couldn't handle it) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also not correct, both the shield page and the links page for AUS depend on state=. --Rs chen 7754 20:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Australia should've gotten on the bandwagon a few years ago, then they would have had a chance to get this major of a revision." - There's that nice, unhelpful "screw you" attitude again. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As is the whole "change your 10000+ articles for our 300 because otherwise its favouritism" concept. State= doesn't affect the infobox in Australia, nor is it (state) in the current Australian road infobox. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. State isn't used in IAR because it isn't needed. However, IR does need it to add all the links at the bottom of the infobox. By the way, it's not my "change your 10000+ articles" but really, if you're going to do something, it should be done properly and changing 10,000 articles is not a big job for a bot. "Screw you, you should have been here from the beginning" is unacceptable, and if that's the attitude that those proposing use of IR are following, then it doesn't encourage support from anyone who has to use IR, as it doesn't bode well for future changes that may be required. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't "screw you, you haven't been around since the beginning", it was "if you came on board when we spent MONTHS redesigning the template to work internationally, then you'd have had a much better opportunity to craft major revisions". - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The actual wording was not that nice: "Australia should've gotten on the bandwagon a few years ago, then they would have had a chance to get this major of a revision." That we didn't get on the bandwagon is hardly our fault. While we may be pretty clever, we're not mind-readers and you don't bother consulting anyone before you nominate their templates for deletion, even when one of your own team recommends consulting them.[12] How are we supposed to know what is in your minds if you don't bother to let us know what you're planning? After all, we don't use the template. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's nobodies fault, but the point I am making is that its hard to, and really an unfair request to make for us go back and redo something on 99% of articles in order to bring in that last 1% that still do things differently. We aren't mind readers either, and unless you give us honest feedback it comes across as resistance for the sake of resistance... I've outlined the few concerns that have actually been raised in the subsection below. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want Australia to use IR it's not unfair at all to expect you to get the template working properly. If you had consulted Australia 18 months ago, instead of not consulting us at all, then you would have had a huge lead time to achieve that and it wouldn't have been a drama because you would have known the requirements from the beginning, instead of coming in at the end and expecting Australia to use a template that doesn't completely fit our needs. Any resistance is because we have a template that functions perfectly well for Australian requirements and you are expecting us to change to one that doesn't work well enough. That the number of Australian road articles is nowhere near the number of US articles is really irrelevant. If you aren't willing to change the template so it works properly on all articles that you want to use it, then there's no pint changing to IR. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is where the impasse lies. We, who support Infobox road, believe it does work properly. I feel like the goalposts are moving. –Fredddie ™ 19:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Downsize, LauraHale & orderinchaos. Five Years 11:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update I've gone ahead and added all the non-conflicting states to Template:Infobox road/meta/mask/country. This means that only WA and NT need country=AUS, as well as routes that go between states (since a state= parameter isn't specified in those cases, how else do you know it's Australia?) --Rs chen 7754 11:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection 3[edit]

Oppose I18N is important, but trying to get the US template to work everywhere is just adding needless complication. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which US template? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although I've been involved in the discussion since very early on, I haven't formally registered an opinion until now. I did this because I wanted to give proponents of the change a fair chance to make their case. Unfortunately they haven't succeeded, at least not with me. My concerns started with failure to consult with WP:AUSTRALIA at any time between the last discussion, 15 months ago, and submission of this nomination. While that's not a mandated requirement, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and involving the project that is the primary maintainer of Australian road articles is a basic step, especially since concern was expressed when it was discussed before the last TfD,[13] The obvious unwillingness by some proponents to even consider making changes requested by those who have to maintain Australian road articles gives me the uneasy feeling that if we are to switch Australian articles to {{Infobox road}}, future changes to the template will be very hard to achieve, no matter how necessary they are. Attitudes that have been expressed, such as "Australians should have been involved from the beginnings if they wanted change" and "America gets more because it has more articles" only worsen this discomfort. There has been some attempt to cater for Australia, but this seem to be grudgingly made. Other editors have expressed concern about various issues that don't seem to have been addressed to their satifaction and, while I concede that some concerns are not too serious, the fact remains that this template has to cater equally for all countries that use it. The persistent unwillingness demonstrated by those promoting Infobox road to cater properly for concerns has convinced me, after more than 9,500 words of discussion, that this template is not ready to replace {{Infobox Australian road}}. I do believe that if the IR proponents had consulted WP:AUSTRALIA after the last discussion and TfD, as was suggested by that TfD's nominator,[14] then we might have had a functioning infobox suitable for Australia. Unfortunately, we do not, which is why I am forced to oppose. At this time, {{Infobox Australian road}} is the best infobox for Australia. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been no "failure to consult". This is a consultation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That you're claiming this now only reinforces my opinion. IR proponents have only ever attempted to consult once, back in 2010, and that was a non-event.[15] Despite a glitch,[16] discussion was started only after I notified WP:AUSTRALIA,[17] and still the template was nominated for deletion despite an on-going discussion.[18] The nominator eventually withdrew the nomination, stating "Let us withdraw this TfD for further discussions and consultations for the time being."[19] In the following 474 days, not a single effort at consultation was ever made by anyone proposing a change to IR, either at Template talk:Infobox Australian road or at WP:AWNB. This is not the place for consultation, this is the place to decide whether consultation has resulted in a template that will serve the purpose that IAR currently serves. Your last post, and the predominant attitude here seems to be that your idea of consultation is, "Here's our template, we say it will replace yours. Don't expect us to change it because you're not big enough. We know better than you about your requirements so we didn't need to ask you what you needed. Just deal with it." I'm afraid that's not consultation. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - "...the fact remains that this template has to cater equally for all countries that use it." Before we redesigned Infobox road in mid-2010, it was strictly an American template. The whole purpose of the redesign was to make it the international template. Those of use who have worked on it have bent over backwards to make sure it works everywhere, or at the very least create the framework so it could work anywhere. So when you suggest that doesn't cater equally to all locations, it stings. –Fredddie™ 17:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - What do you mean? We've done plenty. I have refused to budge on LauraHale's somewhat rude assertion that the template is broken because it doesn't favour all countries "equally", when some countries A) have spend many more years polishing off an informative and policy-conforming template B) have FAR more articles, C) encounter situations that the infobox has been specifically designed to accomodate, and D) has over 10000 articles set up on the current set up, making it completely unrealistic to have the bending point be the non-use of |country=USA on US road articles (even though its the case for several countries). However, very few other issues have been raised aside from non-Australian parameter names (terminus was changed to end to compromise), lack of consultation (the title of this page is Templates for Discussion, this is a consultation, and that is not a logical reason to oppose), the complexity of the template (the wiki template syntax is inherently complex, and not designed for readability; this is a non-issue. Anybody who understands template syntax can understand it easily), and the documentation (which has been updated, feel free to point out other parts that could use improvement. As a programmer, I can easily miss things that seem like common knowledge, but then you work with us to improve it instead of opposing on those grounds alone). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose after reading the discussion, viewing the examples givn a number of respected editors concerns have been dismissed out of the amount abuse and verbage used to defend every oppose here make me sceptical that issues when they arise will be addressed in a timely fashion. I also note that sections of the documentation are incomplete or road usages in Australia are not yet catered for. Gnangarra 01:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Gnangarra, every time this has been discussed, we've been given the impression that if we do A, B, C, then a merger can take place. So we do A, B, C, and get told to do D, E, F as well. So we've done D, E, and F, and we're being told about G, H, and I. (And the notification argument is a red herring. Any editor can propose the merger of templates at any time. Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) didn't notify WP:WikiProject Highways, which is the other wikiproject with a banner on this infobox's talk page, nor was he explicitly required to do so. Templates for Discussion is a valid forum to host a merger discussion, and it would be the height of ownership for the Australian project to claim otherwise.) Everything asked of us supporting a merger (end vs. terminus, support for Australia's states without |country=AUS, etc) have been done. Template documentation can be improved in the process of the merger, but it alone should not be a pre-requisite to agree that such a merger can go forward. In fact, in many cases, when two templates brought to TfD are going to be merged, like {{portal}} and {{portal box}}, the merger isn't immediate after the closure of the debate. Anything unresolved from the discussion period is done, articles are switched or the "old" title is redirected to the "new" title and no deletions are performed until after the mechanics are done. In other words, the TfD conversation is a first step. Imzadi 1979 → 02:47, 8 January 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:Hall & Oates singles[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) 05:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hall & Oates singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly unlinked songs without articles and the ones that do have articles is covered in the main artist template {{Hall & Oates}}. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete, the singles section in Template:Hall & Oates does just fine. Frietjes (talk) 17:31, 4 January 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.

Coronation Street Templates[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) 05:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Battersby(DVD) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

These templates are no longer needed within the WikiProject and have been removed from all articles. GSorby – Ping! 00:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TfDs merged. Delete all as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all apart from "CSMinor" as this is the only one I believe help's readers navigate around a considerable number of lists. The others are redundant because of the main nav box.Rain the 1 18:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I forgot to revert myself on the minor template. I'll remove it from the list. GSorby – Ping! 18:49, 31 December 2011 (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.