Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 976: Line 976:
* '''Oppose''' Publications that furnish rankings vary widely in their coverage of specific graduate fields, both in regard to methodology, scope and the extent of due diligence conducted. It simply would not make sense to converge everything in hopes of attaining some marginal benefit, if any. It is also likely to cause unnecessary upkeep and headaches, as many people have noted already. ''Newtonian7'' 18:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Newtonian7|Newtonian7]] ([[User talk:Newtonian7|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Newtonian7|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
* '''Oppose''' Publications that furnish rankings vary widely in their coverage of specific graduate fields, both in regard to methodology, scope and the extent of due diligence conducted. It simply would not make sense to converge everything in hopes of attaining some marginal benefit, if any. It is also likely to cause unnecessary upkeep and headaches, as many people have noted already. ''Newtonian7'' 18:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Newtonian7|Newtonian7]] ([[User talk:Newtonian7|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Newtonian7|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
* '''Oppose.''' [[User:Omnibus|Omnibus]] ([[User talk:Omnibus|talk]]) 01:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
* '''Oppose.''' [[User:Omnibus|Omnibus]] ([[User talk:Omnibus|talk]]) 01:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
* '''Oppose.''' - In view of there being national rankings in most of these countries a merge wouldn't work from a practical perspective, although the goal of standarisation is good in theory.[[Special:Contributions/86.173.61.22|86.173.61.22]] ([[User talk:86.173.61.22|talk]]) 15:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


==== [[Template:Welcome-anon-border]] ====
==== [[Template:Welcome-anon-border]] ====

Revision as of 15:13, 6 December 2014

< November 28 November 30 >

November 29

Template:DC Comics' shared universe films

Template:DC Comics' shared universe films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The fictional universe is still developing, and once it is officially titled with more films released, this template shall be revived. Moreover, no future DC comics film (except Dawn of Justice) has yet entered production. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2014 (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) 19:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This template is loaded with links that don't really belong; all the "Adapted characters" and "locations" links in particular are really pushing the boundaries of relevance. That editors have felt compelled to pad out the template with links like these is another sign that the subject of DC Comics shared universe films can't support a useful navbox, at least not yet.--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NukeofEarl. Once again, editors are trying to rush into creating similar articles/content as the Marvel Cinematic Universe has, which just does not exist yet for DC. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Audi Sport Team Joest driver timeline

Template:Audi Sport Team Joest driver timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose deleting. Absolutely trivial and bulky template Cybervoron (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2014 (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) 19:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox beef

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

Redundant to {{Infobox prepared food}}, as shown in this edit - indeed, the latter template offers better data fields. Only 29 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're a smart reader — at times. Now read it as "beef is not the same as prepared food" (and don't forget to word 'prepared'). -DePiep (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2014 (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) 19:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox California State Legislature

Template:Infobox California State Legislature (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox legislature}}. Only 11 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, {{Infobox legislative session}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing redundant seen, apart from two words in the template title. No merge mapping provided. -DePiep (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Either that or let's make 50 separate infoboxes, one for every state, no matter how few articles are linked. This is "Balkanization" of infoboxes and creates confusion for people like myself who are not prone to drill down into unneeded levels of minutae for the "proper" infobox. Montanabw(talk) 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how the other 49 states matter. The burden of proof is for the deleter. That is: proof that the parameters, labels, and domain meaning (say, juridical meanings) are the same. For now, the juridical system in CA is not the same as the one the of the world. Confusion is not reduced when there is one template with one-parameter-set fits all template (I don't know, but does "judge" in US means the same as "judge" in UK, in Germany, in Spain?). I get the impression that you are wishing for another improvement, possibly easier finding of terms & specific words (parameters). -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Juridical"" This infobox refers to a legislative body, not a court system. You clearly know squat about this issue. The issue is that if we have a template for the California legislature, there are 50 other state legislatures just in the USA, and it would be utterly ridiculous to have separate templates for each of them. I see no requirement to have the merge already finished before one even nominates. And, furthermore, {{Infobox legislature}} is already used - and properly - for other US State legislative bodies, note Arkansas General Assembly and others. There are over 1500 transclusions lf that infobox and it adequately covers everything from China to the UK as well as the USA. Your argument here is realy rather stunning in its ridiculousness. Montanabw(talk) 20:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • "You clearly know squat about this issue". Never claimed. Nor does the nom. But at least I do not claim that the parameters in the topic at hand are the same. Now if the topic is "juridical", "judicial", "vulcans", or "horses": the burden is upon the proposer(s) to show equivalence between the two.
          Second, the proposal is not about creating 50 templates for 50 states at all. Again, why do you introduce that? Since you clearly don't know squat about logical dependency/independency nor about template design, I'll spell out your own issue for you: you are asking for a template like {{Infobox U.S. state legislature}}, which could cover 50 states (I won't do the further research for you; this is OT anyway). -DePiep (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Not seeing the redundancy. {{Infobox legislature}} deals with the legislative bodies themselves, while {{Infobox California State Legislature}} deals with individual sessions of the California State Legislature. Think of it as the difference between {{Infobox legislature}} and {{Infobox United States Congress}} (which this template is based off of). They have completely different functions and include completely different information. If people don't like a California-only template and want a more generic one, then create that template first. {{Infobox legislature}} does not work; it's missing a lot of useful fields such as terms of legislative leaders. There is no reason to shoehorn this template into a completely inadequate substitute. --Kurykh (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2014 (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) 19:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox United States District Court case

Template:Infobox United States District Court case (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Infobox template with 120 transclusions, originally created as a fork of {{Infobox court case}}, to which it is redundant, as demonstrated here. A previous discussion in April this year reached no consensus, but since then the two alternative templates have been merged at {{Infobox court case}}. A redirect would allow the US-DC-specific name to be retained. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that {{Infobox U.S. Courts of Appeals case}} is already a wrapper for {{Infobox court case}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Keep. by redirect into {{Infobox court case}}. I have completed the parameter comparision that is here. All parameters from the TfD'ed template now present. My conclusion: A redirect would not malform or misrepresent any parameter (and the target template has a nicer layout using headers etc.). -DePiep (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having read the Brianwc and Rrius contributions, I withdraw my !vote. Another case of this is not a merge proposal, so it can not be merged as there is opposition. Also, the proposal is immature, it does not specify how to handle the differences (leaving it to others, like me, to solve the issue -- incorrect as it now shows). Looks like a "no consensus" to me. -DePiep (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to {{Infobox court case}}, per everyone above. Montanabw(talk) 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per everyone above —PC-XT+ 00:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I created this template. I'd like to make sure that all the District court seals would still show up properly within the new template. That's essential. But the merge, even if it technically works, will make using the template much more difficult. There are 94 federal district courts, an equal number of federal district bankruptcy courts, and then several specialized federal trial courts. Basically, around 200 courts that should be served by this template. If you mix them all in with the generic template eventually you're going to get namespace conflicts (if not immediately). This template is for federal courts. But this urge to merge everything into a generic one is going to presumably include all the state courts too. That's the problem. Many states, such as Kansas, refer to their state courts as "District" courts too. So it's going to be very confusing to template users which string to use to refer to the Kansas federal district court versus one of Kansas' 31 state district courts. This is an instance where two templates for apparently similar purposes is actually extremely useful, not accidental, and merging makes things worse for users, not better. Brianwc (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said in the nomination, "...a fork of {{Infobox court case}}, to which it is redundant, as demonstrated here". Have you reviewed the linked page? It appears to address your former concerns, fully. Your latter points appear to be around hypothetical problems with no basis in fact. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now The infoboxes for US federal cases have parameters for the laws at issue and the holding. There has been no discussion of how to retain that, nor of the fact that changing this one without changing the other federal court case templates would make district case pages different from higher court case pages for no discernible reason. -Rrius (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • So discuss it; that's why this discussion was opened. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ummm, okay... I thought that served as an invitation for you, the one who is proposing to get rid of the template, to explain how you plan to do so without disturbing the information provided by those parameters or at least assuring that you will somehow manage it, or explain why you think it is unnecessary to save that information. It isn't really my responsibility to tell you how you are supposed to do it. I raised the question and said I oppose a change until the issues are discussed. I'm not sure what that snotty comment was supposed to illicit from me, so the best I can do is just point back to what I said and once again ask you to engage with the issues raised. -Rrius (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Brianwc and Rrius. Might change my mind if the nominator (or someone else) actually responds to their concerns with convincing solutions. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:45, 29 November 2014 (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) 19:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox criminal organization

Template:Infobox criminal organization (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox criminal organization}} {{Infobox organization}} (into which any unique and required parameters should be merged). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: The template can't be redundant to itself. Which other template is {{Infobox criminal organization}} redundant to? Jarble (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that; fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tiresome? You have not even started making a substantial response. Maybe it is your dismissive attitude that makes you tired. -DePiep (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The parameters in {{Infobox criminal organization}} with no equivalent in {{Infobox organization}} are:

  • |named after=
  • |founding_location=
  • |years_active= (use |formation= & |extinction=)
  • |ethnicity=
  • |rivals=

None of these are unique to criminal organisations; all may apply to non-criminal organisations, and their totality does not justify a separate template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added those which are struck through and here is a sample conversion; and another; and a third. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. This is TfD. Here is where proposes a well-based merge (ins and outs in the nomination), and one awaits the discussion. What you just did is 1. start a discussion, 3. enforce your own opinion before closure. That belies your own nom statement of to be discussed. -DePiep (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And here we are, discussing. Do you have anything constructive to add? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added those is not discussing. It is disrupting the discussion. I have reverted them (let me spell this out: one does not implement ones preferred outcome of a discussion beforehand. You are supposed to convince people here, not enforce. Since there are keep arguments here, you can not perform a "speedy merge"). -DePiep (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You appear, again, to be inventing "rules" on the fly. Your assertions have no substance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 28 November 2014 (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) 19:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox U.S. legislation

Template:Infobox U.S. legislation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox legislation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox U.S. legislation with Template:Infobox legislation.
Redundancy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose -- I don't see how a merger would provide any increase in benefit to the reader nor any increase in the value of the resulting work(s). The U.S. is not only unique enough in it's bicameral, co-equal, Federal legislative branch of government to warrant its own information "blocks" and approach by itself but the serialization, codification and citation of that body's statutory output is also convoluted enough (e.g. U.S. Code, Statutes at Large et. al) to merit it's own information scheme as well.

    The claim of "redundancy" might be appropriate at the technical, template level but is woefully lacking when understanding & working with the actual content at hand.-- George Orwell III (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - George Orwell III hits the nails on the head. The U.S. legislative process is sufficiently unique to warrant a separate infobox. And to add another example to the list that George has, I'll add that the U.S. legislative process also distinctly involves executive vetoes and subsequent legislative overrides. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - agree that the US system is so distinct that it warrants a separate template. Also, if there is only one template, there may be a tendency for it to be US-centric, becoming difficult to use for non-US legal situations. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The redundancy is indeed at the technical level; the issue is not the "uniqueness" or otherwise of the US system, but whether or not we need one or two templates to display the relevant information. The benefits of removing or redirecting (merging) redundant templates are widely understood; and include a reduction in the maintenance overhead, and lowering the cognitive load for editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: I think you're making too many unsupported assumptions/inferences. Template:Infobox U.S. Legislation is a one off call made directly to Template:Infobox, the mother/parent of all Infoboxes. How is that redundant? What is pointless is making it a redirect to another template that is also a one off call being made directly to the same base Infobox template -- in effect making it twice removed from the parent instead of just once directly. There is no redundancy issue here that cannot be overcome with simple adjustments in categorization if anything at all. And normally I'd agree to the premise of a possible reduction in maintenance overhead if at least the css and/or inline stylings matched up -- but they don't in this case. I would think that fork alone would increase the amount wrangling needed to maintain the distinct styling for both viens in a single template never mind the difference gap in actual utilization world-wide.

      "Merging" something like Template:Infobox UK Legislation might make far more sense to do; not only because the rendering of the two are nearly identical layout & style wise, but much of the parameters, labeling, content and their default values better align with other legislative bodies (ca, nz, au, etc.) more so than they ever would with the U.S's. I shouldn't have to be familiar with the intricacies of the majority of the world's legislative output just to be able to navigate a single one - a rather unique one at that (so much for "cognitive load"). The fact the UK one handles Wales, Scotland, Ireland and the like ultimately goes against the premise that consolidation automatically usurps "uniqueness" at the end of the day too... or somehow will increase value over the long haul as well.

      Sorry. I just don't think its worth doing. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • The redundancy is in having a specific, (in this case US) template to do a job that an existing, more generic template can do. I note that you advance no argument that the more generic template cannot do the job. There is absolutely no need to use different styles; indeed, unifying style is another argument in favour, and advantage, of merging. The UK template could be merged also, but that's a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just because a so-called "more generic" template can be made to reproduce the current output with enough diffusion and some effort does not automatically make it worth doing. I made the case - and have a small consensus (so far) - that the "uniqueness" of the U.S. legislative system and their legislative output meets inherent notability to the point where leaving it to it's own 'puddle of water in the larger sea' makes far more sense than demoting it would - both at the future usability level and the current familiarity level - in this specific case. Making it all "look the same" doesn't help matters for those first landing here on legislative articles that happen to share or have similar titles/purposes either.

          In addition, I don't appreciate being 'bold texted' [well establish to be the equivalent of shouting someone down] by somebody who is suppose to be running a formal, constructive proposal. I really didn't expect the usual User talk page roustabout for simply voicing my opposition here. So without an apology first, I see no reason to comment any further either way. Good Luck. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Andy, "a more generic template can do". Always. That one is called {{Infobox}}. What is your point?
Now back to content. Can you be more specific about "The redundancy is indeed at the technical level"? What does that include, and what does it exclude? -DePiep (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid using reductio ad absurdum/ straw men fallacies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Simple for you: don't answer the absurdums and do answer the questions. BTW, I note that this is the second time in a row here that you ignore the question. -DePiep (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge: So long as all the parameters are kept. To have multiple templates makes things complicated (and are there separate infoboxes for UK leigslation, Spanish legislation, etc...?) . As someone who works on US Law-related articles on occasion, I would simply reach for Infobox legislation, provided it had all the parameters I needed. I hate having to dig through 120,000,000 templates to find the nitpicky one that has the three parameters that were omitted from a more general one. I used this one for my FA-class article Horse Protection Act of 1970, and remember having to ask the techies to help me fix all the complicated parameters. Anything to streamline and simplify templates for us non-tech sorts would be valuable. Montanabw(talk) 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand this. As someone who "works on US Law-related articles", why would you not prefer to have a template named "Infobox U.S. legislation"? Saves you from trawling through 120,000,000 parameters. Does it help if you have to read documentation for |royal_assent=? And how does it help you if the parameter list does not mention SCOTUS? As for complicated parameters - isn't that to be solved within the template? (if it's complicated for US legislature, how would it be simpler for general legislature?). This last point is for template improvement, not for throwing all bads together in one template. -DePiep (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The only reason for deletion the no mentions is this word, "Redundancy", later specified to "The redundancy is indeed at the technical level" (10:06). But actually, there is little or no redundancy. Out of 13+38 labels (lefthand text) in US+generic template, only 7 are the same (same words); headers not counted. And in the 68+55 parameters, 2 (two) pairs exist. So 119 parameter names have no match. By these numbers only, one can say that there is no redundancy. On top of this, one can safely state that the legal terms in the US are not equal to those worldwide. That is about the exact names of items involved. Legal words for process, actors, statuses: all are specific to a juridical system (incidental overlaps do not deny this). So next to those numbers, there is no base that the legal domains (as in: knowledge, field of work) are the same. There is no redundancy.
With the TfD the burden of proof (proof that this is a sound improvement) is with the proposer. However, the proposer has given a one-word reason, and that one now has shown wrong. Clearly the nomination was without any check beforehand (no technical mapping, no considerations of the judicial terms present). This way the actual, constructive merge job is left for others to work out. To compare, a preparing discussion at a talkpage leaves much more time & space for the subtleties of a merge, especially since it invites domain knowledge (those who know about judicial terms).
Third point is that I find the attitude of the nom not constructive. When I asked for clarification of the 'technical redundant' remark made, no answer was given (22:13). By then, another serious contributor already had left this discussion for being shouted at in boldface (the non-engaging response was a snark, 17:09). As a result, the boldfacing was not reconsidered, and its content was not addressed by the editor. I ask the closing admin to clearly describe how & by what that subthread (say, those with the George Orwell III contributions) is used. And I myself still have no idea what the grand idea behind this merge proposal is, nor were my queries into this answered. -DePiep (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As described in my comment above, there is no "Redundancy" (the whole reason for this merge). No idea or plan has been brought forward on how to actually merge by parameters, texts & judicial content. The discussion has not developed into a constructive path. -DePiep (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The redundancy of a country-specific template when a global template already exists is logically self-evident. The purpose of this discussion is to determine how to merge them; not TO present a fait acompli. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Discussion with you is useless before you correct your dismissive snarky answers you made earlier. -DePiep (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Considering the slew of editors who disagree with you, there is clearly nothing "self-evident" about your position. You'll need to do a much better job convincing people than ignoring questions, pointing out your logical superiority, and using boldface in lieu of making an argument. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 14:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • That a "slew" of, er, just four editors apparently don't understand template redundancy has little to do with logic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • My apologies; I wrote that under the assumption that you actually wanted to convince other editors of the merits of your proposal and attempt to establish consensus that this template should be deleted. Since you apparently have already determined that consensus exists for your position—as evidenced by your bulletproof boldface text arguments and the whole 2 !votes for it—I clearly am wasting my time. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 14:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in support of !delete vote: The way to handle a 120,000,000 parameter infobox is to have samples in the documentation that allow people like me to copy and paste the proper parameters. Seems to me the best of both worlds; no need for the tech problems caused by a zillion templates, but where multiple parameters WOULD cause confusion for people like me, create the proper subset as an example. Much easier for everyone, particularly where even the US Legislation infobox already has some confusing parameters that cause problems for us non-techies. Montanabw(talk) 20:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a complete set of U.S.-specific parameters for you to copy in a US article. Putting all those legal system specifics in one template would really make that 120,000,000 figure a reality. (I thought you were making a joke). I think you are asking for a cleanup of the US template (reduce complexity, improve documentation). -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or, by numbers: the two templates have 121 unique parameters (68+55 minus two double names) as I noted above. That's not a merge, that's stacking two infoboxes under one title. And all the complexities you met in the US version would be in the merged version. All of them, plus the other unneeded parameters you'll have to skip. -DePiep (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion with you is useless before you correct your dismissive snarky answers you made earlier. -DePiep (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But how, PC-XT? This is going circular: this TfD has no proposal for the actual merge (say, by parameter mapping). A "merge" conclusion would be based on !voted opinions ("let's do it") only. Then after closure, the merge would be enforced because of that outcome, no matter what wrongs, problems & issues are introduced. Because the merging editor will always point to this closure. That is why I call this immature: there is no thorough proof of overlap, based on content analysis (domain knowledge). -DePiep (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would not necessarily be enforced. If a problem is found that requires more discussion, the merge wouldn't happen without that discussion. It would be nice if all the technicalities could be worked out ahead of time, but there are many templates awaiting merge with no clear mappings. Merge later, as Int21h says below, would be ok with me, as well, as there is no deadline. —PC-XT+ 23:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I disagree that the European-American federal statutory legislation scheme is somehow so different from other European schemes; there is the act of parliament at question (cited as session/chapter laws) and the acts it amends (the act creating the US Code, as amended, known as the US Code), as well as the procedural history and related legislation such as rules and regulations of the executive bodies. But... We simply don't know enough about non-English speaking countries' legal systems. I can't even decipher the Spanish, French and Italian court systems, much less observe how their statutory legislation schemes are implemented in practice. I've just started on European-American sub-national schemes (New York's overview is done although I haven't really started on {{New York legislation}} yet, only ~55 states and occupied territories to go, not counting the Philippines). Yes, there are caveats to many legislative bodies, such as the UK, who's statutory legislation must be approved by an old woman who lives in a castle (dragons, anyone?). There is also the question of delegated legislation (regulations). We just need to make an ontological study of legislation along with the relevant old ladies and dragons, and carefully merge them into a master template, but we just aren't there yet. So.. Merge later. Int21h (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2014 (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) 19:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox university chancellor

Template:Infobox university chancellor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox officeholder}} (into which any unique parameters should be merged). Could be made a wrapper. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 15 November 2014 (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) 19:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been rendered moot, as the template is now a wrapper for the officeholder infobox (I didn't realise Frietjes' rewrite, mentioned above, was live and not in their userspace - thanks, for that, Frietjes). The two missing parameter, |salary=, which may not be used, and |institutions= are catered for by the |blank= parameters. If they're not needed, all we need to decide is whether to keep the wrapper, or have a bot Subst: it.

See:

for tracking, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox university faculty

Template:Infobox university faculty (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox university}} (into which the one or two unique parameters should be merged; and to which {{Infobox university school}} already redirects). Only 10 transclusions. OrphanedAndy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very convincing. -DePiep (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, why discuss at all. You might as well close this TfD too, Andy. All other editors should apologizse for even thinking about this. -DePiep (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2014 (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) 19:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox academic division

Template:Infobox academic division (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox university}} (into which the one or two unique parameters should be merged; and to which {{Infobox university school}} already redirects). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:17, 15 November 2014 (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) 19:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox medical college

Template:Infobox medical college (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox university}}, to which {{Infobox college}} redirects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The parameter mapping should be done at first instance (note that you added it here after my post here). The original nom post left the burden to others. -DePiep (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2014 (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) 19:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone is still in any doubt about the redundancy of the nominated template: even before this TfD, {{Infobox university}} was already in use on:

and many more besides; in fact, on far more medical college articles then the nominated template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bgr

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

Used in only two articles. Content is ||style="text-align:right;{{#if:{{{1|}}}|color:#000000;background:#{{{1}}};}}"|. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 1 November 2014 (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) 19:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:?/meta/shortname

Template:?/meta/shortname (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No meaningful content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the meta subpages are mostly used in political infoboxes. They hold information like wikidata, but allow it to be used in multiple pages. This one is probably meant to be used when the political affiliation is unknown, for some reason. —PC-XT+ 07:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not less confused. It's currently untranscluded, so redirecting seems odd to me. It has no content, so subst:'ing is a no-op, and it can't be used for that. Assuming this does have a use, where can I find out more about this 'class' of templates? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Unknown/meta/shortname? Frietjes (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Frietjes —PC-XT+ 07:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and revert this unconstructive edit, which is what made it empty and so do nothing; then partially revert this edit. The template is part of a group used in election boxes, having names like Template:party/meta/shortname (see Category:Political party shortname templates), e.g. Template:British Whig Party/meta/shortname. This particular one is occasionally used when the political party in an election has not yet been found out but is not truly unknown - perhaps reliable sources are lacking - and so a single question mark is used as a placeholder. The template was created soon after this edit - in {{Election box gain with party link}} the |loser= parameter is mandatory. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps if the template has been empty (and unused?) for five years, that's a sign that it's unnecessary? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It has indeed been empty for (almost) five years; but it's likely that the edit which made it empty went completely unnoticed at the time, since the page has just two watchers. As for non-use, it's been unused for less than three days, and certainly wasn't unused at the time that this TFD was raised. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If it was used anywhere in the last (almost) six years, it didn't work. And apparently, nothing really went wrong. I might still not understand what the intention and effect of this template is, but if I understand it correctly, for the last six years everybody was perfectly happy with this template doing nothing at all. It stands to reason that they'll be equally happy with not having this template. It might even be better if it does something, but I can't tell for sure - why didn't anybody fix that earlier doesn't really have an answer on Wikipedia. Changes can go unnoticed for a long time, but if anyone was still actively using this template, surely, they'd have noticed it wasn't doing what they thought it was doing when they inserted it somewhere? And if it wasn't inserted anywhere in the past six years, it's fairly likely nobody will any time soon either, doesn't it? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • So {{Unknown/meta/shortname}} is for those confirmed to be unknown, and this one is for those not yet confirmed as anything? It seems to be something like the difference between null and undefined in some programming languages. Some people see the difference and the reasons behind it clearly, and others wonder why there is one. I can see the point that they are different, and the usage of this one is only temporary, and hard to track, so I'll change my !vote to revert those edits per Redrose64. —PC-XT+ 06:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't help but think that if this template was created in 2008, and changed to do nothing at all in January 2009, whether or not that was the right thing to do, and nobody noticed or cared for that entire time, this template isn't useful at all, and deletion is reasonable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example:
Example Election Box
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Whig gain from ? Swing N/A
Whig gain from Swing N/A
Whig gain from (unknown) Swing N/A
The first row is, of course, the template under consideration. It was originally designed to say "Whig gain from ?" and edited to say "Whig gain from [[?|]]" (The editor may have thought [[?|]] would automagically turn into [[?|?]], but there was no real point to that, and it doesn't.) The second row has no template. (I assume this would be the replacement if this template is deleted, but if not, we can imagine the red link instead of the TfD notice in the first row.) The third row shows the use of {{Unknown/meta/shortname}}, which is the closest template to this one. Though semantically inaccurate for this purpose, it gives an example of how these templates are supposed to look.
The top two now look similar, if the TfD notice is ignored, because they both generate broken code. This shows that deleting the template would be more or less the same as keeping it as is. I probably wouldn't notice the difference or care, because it is only a placeholder. I may think the code just needs to stay broken unless I take the time to investigate all of this. However, now that I have been shown that it doesn't have to be that way, I prefer the original. I wouldn't oppose a move to a name that tells the purpose of the template in English, like {{Placeholder/meta/shortname}}. —PC-XT+ 04:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I attempt to understand this, I ask the closing admin to take my !vote above with a grain of salt - maybe I'm still missing something crucial. Meanwhile, is it correct to say that the intention of the Unknown and the ? is to link to Unknown and to ? respectively? How is that a good idea? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These meta templates are very confusing. The templates only set the displayable text. The link is always to the article that shares the base name of the template, which is usually a political party article title. So, {{Unknown/meta/shortname}} will link to Unknown, regardless of the template content, and {{?/meta/shortname}} will always link to ?.
I suppose Unknown is ok as a general concept, but it isn't specific enough to explain why it is linked from a political infobox. ? is even less related. Linking to Placeholder name, rather than Question mark, may be less confusing, but still not ideal. (Placeholder is a DAB page that lists political placeholders as something totally different, so this name I mentioned in my last reply would be confusing.) If we made specific articles to hold the political usage, the templates should be renamed to match them, however, I'm not sure there are enough reliable sources about either unknown political parties or the lack of reliable sources in political articles, so this seems to be a bit of a paradox. Linking to other namespaces that describe the problem would be discouraged by policy. We are basically stuck with providing all details through the link text, and choosing a generic article title as the base name of the template.
There has been talk of simplifying this system. I would think one meta template that could call one of any number of formatting templates with the political data for that party as hardcoded parameters would be better than multiple meta templates that each hold one piece of data, but some may disagree with that. —PC-XT+ 04:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its hard to understand how our readers might ever derive benfit from links to Unknown (a disambiguation page) or Question mark, from within election results tables. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me a problem is that these templates are currently needed to not break {{Election box gain with party link}}. The solution to that is to fix that template so that loser isn't required, not to keep these. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these hacks should be deleted until the election box templates (and any other templates that use these meta templates) properly handle these edge cases. Otherwise, it would definitely be better than linking to unrelated articles and DAB pages. I still think a redesign of them all would be better than just fixing this problem in all of them. —PC-XT+ 05:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this argument were in heavy use, I could see the point (though I'm still not sure whether or not I'd agree with it), but to keep a currently unused template so that we can start to put links to ? in loser parameters doesn't seem right to me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:17, 15 November 2014 (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) 19:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Silver line

Template:Silver line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in only one article. Content is style="background: #e5e5e5". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 29 October 2014 (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) 18:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bronze line

Template:Bronze line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in only one article. Content is style="background: #eecc99". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 29 October 2014 (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) 18:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grey line

Template:Grey line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Content is style="background: #EFEFEF". Used on 192 articles, of which 185 use a redirect from {{Ligne grise}}, whose name will be opaque to most editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 29 October 2014 (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) 18:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gold line

Template:Gold line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in only one article. Content is style="background: #fffcaf". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 29 October 2014 (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) 18:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bg-c

Template:Bg-c (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in only six articles. Content is style="background-color: {{{1}}}". Subst: and delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete (after subst:'ing). It's rather clunky; because the style attribute is part of the template invocation, you can't have more than one such templates on an element; you can't have wikitext containing i.e. <div {{Bg-c|grey}} {{center}}>. If we would extract the style attribute we would end up with wikitext looking something like <div style="{{Gg-c|grey}}"> I don't see that improves over <div style="background-color: grey">; it's marginally shorter at the cost of obfuscation and complexity - which is IMO too high a cost. Let's keep things simple. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete per Martijn Hoekstra —PC-XT+ 05:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a convenience for the creation of tables. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about keeping as a subst-only template? —PC-XT+ 10:51, 24 November 2014 (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) 18:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox closed London station

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 with {{Infobox London station}} Magioladitis (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox closed London station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to either {{Infobox UK disused station}} or {{Infobox London station}}, into one or other of which the small number of differing parameters should be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 24 October 2014 (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) 18:46, 29 November 2014 (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 Paris Metro line

Template:Infobox Paris Metro line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Limited use (12 lines). Redundant to {{Infobox rail line}} (see Circle line (London Underground), for example). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 24 October 2014 (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) 18:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Taiwan station

Template:Infobox Taiwan station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox station}}. Could be made a wrapper of that, in the first instance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 24 October 2014 (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) 18:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox London Tram

Template:Infobox London Tram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Limited use (five tram lines); replace with {{Infobox rail line}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 24 October 2014 (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) 18:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Election Campaign

Template:Infobox Election Campaign (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use, despite being created over seven years ago. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, merge with {{Infobox Iranian election campaign}} (four transclusions) and rename the latter? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 24 October 2014 (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) 18:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Electoral reform

Template:Infobox Electoral reform (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use (and that's poor quality). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 24 October 2014 (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) 18:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox gunpowder plotter

Template:Infobox gunpowder plotter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used on only 14 biographies (where it is redundant to {{Infobox person}}) and one event (where it is redundant to {{Infobox event}}; or possibly {{Infobox civil conflict}}). We have, AFAICT, no other infobox which is used in this fashion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 15 October 2014 (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) 04:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete replace with standard infobox. There won't be any new members of this plot, as it occurred centuries ago and any new plotters belong to a new plot, so there is a strictly limited population of potential articles this can be used for. Any front-ending would need to be usable for more than just this particular event. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm tempted to say it needs more discussion, but it should probably be deleted and replaced by the standard templates. —PC-XT+ 06:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no other suitable templates. If this template is deleted I shall simply remove all infoboxes from every related article. Doubtless that will make Mabbett a very happy man (he's only doing this because he and I have argued over Pink Floyd album articles). Parrot of Doom 09:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please cease posting lies about me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Go fuck yourself. Parrot of Doom 22:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Parrot of Doom: If you think there is a problem with Andy's actions then it would be best to take this to dispute resolution. Lashing out with personal attacks is not going to solve anything; in fact, it is likely to escalate the situation, and it will only make you look bad. Feel free to message me on my talk page or by email if you want to talk about it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I can't be bothered, it really isn't important. Just like Mabbett. Parrot of Doom 08:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Mr. Stradivarius: Mr Strad, you forgot to give Eric Corbett this same invitation. They wrote right above the relisting note. (Mabbett gets a free pass, of course). It should be well-published that it is not allowed to criticise Mabbett, because he is free to call people a liar. I assume by DR you mean something like this. A better advise is: don't spend time on a resolution with PigsontheMabbett at all. No admin ever is gonna say anything about Pigsonthewing (proof in case: this thread), we might lose their brilliant constructive contributions. All those editors chased away from threads like this one (average: two per TfD): they sure need a 'warning'. Oh, this just in: sandbox stalking edits [8] by a dick. One more point, Mr. Strad: I find it telling that when you point to DR, you find it necessary to mention emailing. Clearly you're not the only one in this thread who knows DR. -DePiep (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace by standard infoboxes, - only 15 articles, no? It was successfully done for Bruckner's (11) symphonies (example). Instead of this discussion, it could have been done easily, to help editors new to the articles but familiar with standard templates. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2014 (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) 19:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quotation

Template:Quotation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Quote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Quotation with Template:Quote.
Compare:

This uses Template:Quotation

This uses Template:Quote

Either make the styling switchable, or do away with it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your proposal is, I'm sure, clear to you but not to me. For a start I don't know whether "do away with it" refers to the style or the template and I do not know how "do away with it" corresponds to "merging". Anyway, I will not be continuing further with this conversation. Thincat (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although Andy's proposal is syntactically ambiguous, the interpretation "do away with the style" of Template:Quotation seems to mean "make Template:Quotation the same as Template:Quote" and thus reduces the proposal to "do away with the template". Also, I think that the word "or" in the proposal doesn't have to mean that the alternatives are equivalent. As I read the proposal, Andy would be happy to dump Template:Quotation but suggests merging as a way to eliminate the confusion between the template names by making the style choice a clearly understandable switch. --Rich Janis (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This uses Template:quote box

  • Comment There's also {{quote box}}, which is much, much more widely used than either of them, and looks more different still (and apparently doesn't work inside bulletted lists, as I discovered writing this comment. I get the impression that there may be technical issues with a merge; the WP:MOS mentions that the choice of one template or another may be driven by how they interact with references. I'm off to sandbox that in my userspace now. --ais523 00:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Deprecate {{quotation}} in favour of {{quote}} in articlespace. OK, so I've had a look at the various suggestions on the MOS, including all three of the templates in question and old-fashioned <blockquote>, and the results are here: User:ais523/quotes. As far as I can tell, all four methods work in every situation envisaged by the Manual of Style. However, this is more ways to format a quotation than would possibly be desirable; there's no obvious reason from the templates to use one over another. We can turn to the Manual of Style itself. The relevant section is MOS:Blockquote (which hasn't significantly changed in ages; here's what it looked like last year), which recommends not using colored backgrounds for quotes. This would imply that {{quote}} should be favoured over {{quotation}}. ({{quote box}} is different enough in usage (it's intended to serve the same purpose as an image) that it should probably be left separate. As far as I can tell, though, there's no reason to use {{quotation}} over {{quote}} in articlespace, and given that we already have rules for a consistent quote appearance, we should probably follow them. {{quotation}} is mentioned once in the MoS, but only as an alternative to italics, which it also disrecommends; this is something of an internal inconsistency. However, there appear to be legitimate uses of {{quotation}} in projectspace (e.g. on Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Arbitration_enforcement_bans), which should probably be retained (perhaps with a less confusing name). So in short, I'd recommend removing {{quotation}} from articles, fixing the WP:MOS to be internally consistent, and renaming {{quotation}} to something obviously more projectspacey (e.g. {{policy quotation}}) for its uses in projectspace. I'll bring this up on WT:MOS to see if the editors there agree with this. --ais523 01:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge with the "box" switch; otherwise, Rename, or Do Nothing. My edit today in Buckingham Palace used Template:Quotation to overcome an apparent bug in Template:Quote. I.e., Template:Quote fails to visibly indent a paragraph when there's an image to the left of that paragraph. Until that bug is fixed, Template:Quotation, or the box option in Template:Quote, provides an important contribution to the visual distinction of a block quote from other text. If a rename is chosen, I'd modify JPG's suggestion and propose "boxedquote". --Rich Janis (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC). Revised --Rich Janis (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We should definitely be looking for cases where one of the templates works, and the other is buggy, in order to resolve the technical issues. I think there are two separate issues here, the technical issues and the appearance issues. Meanwhile, I resolved the inconsistency in the MoS via removing references to {{quotation}}; if you disagree, feel free to revert me and start a conversation on the talk page. --ais523 00:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Move {{quotation}} to a projectspacey name per ais523 ({{wpquote}} would be shorter, {{project quote}} would work, too), and install a namespace detector that throws a big red error if it's used in mainspace. Failing that, fix technical issue and merge {{quotation}} to {{quote}}, per much of the above discussion, with a |box=y parameter (that must be specified manually and is discouraged in Template:Quote/doc), and without going through and swapping in {{quote|box=y|...}} code on extant uses of {{quotation}} in mainspace, just {{quote|...}}. We usually do not need or want a box around a block quotation. Frankly, it's an excuse for editors who favor (encyclopedically inappropriate) news style to use "billboard" call-outs and pull quotes in our articles, which should almost never be done here. The default display should not have a box. It's definitely ridiculously confusing that {{quote}} and {{quotation}} go to markedly different templates; it's like having a {{cite needed}} template that looks nothing like {{citation needed}}. The image-wrapping issue can be fixed by porting code (or the underlying solution in it) from one template to the other. I'm opposed to moving {{quotation}} to a non-projectspacey name like {{boxedquote}} or whatever, except perhaps as a stripped-down call to {{quote|box=y|...}} (but TfD has been showing a trend [that I do not support] toward deleting such short-hand templates of late, so I'm not sure why we'd go the other direction this time). PS: Quotations in italics, while it still mentioned {{quotation}}, indicated that it bollixes citation links (but did does not elaborate further; I would guess the issue has been reported to Template talk:Quotation). Any merging of code should be very well-tested.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC) [substantially revised, 07:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)][reply]
    Let's not kid ourself: it's extremely likely that even with a lengthy and careful conversion campaign, this may lead to unexpected breakage and setbacks. Currently quote is buggy when next to images, and quotation is buggy in indented contexts - the latter by my best guess caused by tidy.php buggyness, and the former I'm not sure of. The process of how we want to do this shouldn't be dependent on what we want to do in this case. Moving to a single quote template might even help mitigate issues such as this one, if they function more similar on a technical level. I'm definitely volunteering to assist in the conversion process though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've looked into the technical issue here (updating User:ais523/quotes; see there for the latest testcases). The situation seems to be that all the quoting techniques (except {{quote box}}, obviously) are losing the gap to their left when next to a left-floated image. This applies to <blockquote>, so it isn't surprising that {{quote}} has the same problem. {{quotation}} is also wrong – it's losing space in the same place that {{quote}} is – but the background and border makes this less noticeable. Also, I've found a case where all three templates fail (inside a list element, with text before and after); in this case, though, the hardcoded <blockquote> still works. With respect to the problem with images, I'm becoming increasingly convinced this is a site CSS issue, and not one that will be easy to fix, rather than a mistake in the actual templates. Ideally, we'd change the CSS on blockquotes rather than on left-floated images (otherwise, we'd likely break a lot of unrelated things). --ais523 12:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

{{Imagequote2}} apparently resolves this issue. My recent proposal that such functionality be incorporated into {{Quote}}, and the former then be deleted, was rejected. It has only 74 transclusions, and does not use <blockquote>. Some days I wonder why I bother... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baby steps Andy, we're getting there, maybe not today, but we're getting there. Thank you for all the work you're putting in here. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Re: User:Martijn Hoekstra) I have no objection to you (or anyone else trying to get this quotation mess sorted out) adding cases to my testcase page. --ais523 14:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I've been working on the sandbox at {{Quote/Sandbox}} (note uppercase S), and have it working pretty closely to both {{quote}} and {{quotation}} now (except with bugfixes; all the testcases pass now). One thing I've noticed is that merging the templates is awkward from the coding point of view; so much of the styling is different between the articlespace and projectspace version. --ais523 15:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment …and I found a better way to merge them, using a site CSS override (which isn't in place yet). You can add the CSS below to Special:Mypage/monobook.css or Special:Mypage/vector.css for testing; if this seems to be a good idea (and the consensus of the TfD is to merge the templates), I'll try to get this into site CSS. I like this latest version of the template, because it seems to deal with all the known problems with the other templates, and lets us merge the templates into one. (Then we can put a namespace warning if the "box=" parameter is used in mainspace, and have a wrapper that just includes the parameter for projectspace.) --ais523 18:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
<nowiki>
blockquote.templatequote.toccolours { padding:1.3em 1.5em 1.5em 1.5em;}
.templatequote.toccolours div.templatequotecite { text-align:right; }
</nowki>
  • Comment We put the above on the testwiki site CSS to make sure it'll work when placed into the site configuration here: Mobile Monobook Vector Hopefully, this should sort out all the technical objections that have been made to date, and we can focus on the policy side of the discussion instead. --ais523 20:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
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) 18:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bq

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

Fork of {{Quote}}, to which it is redundant (and much less used). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doesn't demonstrate that at all; the obvious intent was style=color:Blue;. Whether there's a case for using blue in that bit of content is matter for discussion on that page's talk page. The other example is also an argument for using a better font-size value, not a TfD matter. Anyway, my !vote on this is "merge to {{quote}} and redirect", below. I'm simply trying to point out that you sometimes include complaints about content, about template uses in particular cases, that aren't relevant here. They're a form of argument to emotion – look how terrible this is! the sky is falling! – and are not helpful.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that there should be only one template resolving to <blockquote> but it should have an option to add predefined classes, language, etc., but not styles or titles or id, through a wrapper for consistent and accessible styling. The HTML5 proposed recommendation (this version) states:

There is no formal method for indicating the markup in a blockquote is from a quoted source. It is suggested that if the footer or cite elements are included and these elements are also being used within a blockquote to identify citations, the elements from the quoted source could be annotated with metadata to identify their origin, for example by using the class attribute (a defined extensibility mechanism). (w3.org)

Here are two examples of how to use it from that proposed recommendation are: 

<blockquote>
  <p>My favorite book is <cite class="from-source">At Swim-Two-Birds</cite></p>
  <footer>- <cite>Mike[tm]Smith</cite></footer>
</blockquote>

and 

<figure>
 <blockquote>
  <p>The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with.
  It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held
  prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to
  be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true. We have a
  method, and that method helps us to reach not absolute truth, only
  asymptotic approaches to the truth — never there, just closer
  and closer, always finding vast new oceans of undiscovered
  possibilities. Cleverly designed experiments are the key.</p>
 </blockquote>
 <figcaption><cite>Carl Sagan</cite>, in "<cite>Wonder and Skepticism</cite>", from
 the <cite>Skeptical Enquirer</cite> Volume 19, Issue 1 (January-February
 1995)</figcaption>
</figure>

My point is that neither {{Bq}} nor {{Quote}} are rendered in a way that completely support the more current standards. {{quote|phrase|person|source}} has the basics but does not have a language parameter which would help screen reader accessibility with pronunciation or a class parameter which would help with semantics (however they would be used – for example identifying the text as a question or as an answer). —BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're not wrong, but the issues are separate. Also, {{Lang}} can be used inside {{Quote}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, inside the element but not in a simple way as a Wikipedia template parameter that would be used as lang="xxyyzz" attribute of the HTML <blockquote> element. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we routinely made quotations completely in a foreign language, then it would not be difficult to add a lang parameter to {{quote}}. But language markup is principally applied to an an inline element, rather than a block, so having the flexibility to use {{lang}} for short extracts within a large quote is no disadvantage. I'd be inclined to update quote to provide the useful commonly-used features and redirect bq to it. --RexxS (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to {{Quote}} then redirect; it's not a simple redirect case. The {{Bq}} template was written expressly to ease conversion and merging of block quotation templates (that's why it supports as many parameter names of the other templates as possible). See its documentation for the details, including a conversion guide. These features should be merged into {{Quote}} until the templates they aid transition away from no longer exist, then those extra parameter names can be removed (optionally).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:49, 22 October 2014 (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) 19:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Left Behind Characters

Template:Left Behind Characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Most of these characters have been merged with List of Left Behind characters; by my count, only five on the list still have their own articles. Cerebellum (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox India university ranking/General

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, general housekeeping. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox India university ranking/General (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox India university ranking/Medical (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox India university ranking/Business (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox India university ranking/Global (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox India university ranking/Engineering (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox India university ranking/Law (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old subpages which are no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2014 (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 Cambridge college

Template:Infobox Cambridge college (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Oxford college (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Cambridge college with Template:Infobox Oxford college.

Per recent TfD discussions:

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment what's the name of the merged template? I would potentially support merging these with {{infobox residential college}}, but unfortunately (for the second time) this isn't what is being proposed. Frietjes (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. First, in the two earlier discussions, mentioned above, the topic was to delete these two and redirect them into {{Infobox university}} (not into one another). The nominations each missed the notification of merge (1). Also, there was no plan on how & what to merge. No analysis was made about overlap in content, semantics, parameters, etc (2). That lead to the conclusion of keep, twice. Now the nom simple starts a new proposal, indeed a merge (not delete) this time, but into a different target that the earlier TfDs were about (3). So none of the arguments can be reused as a dumb copypaste, just by a link. And again, I notice that the nomination does not mention any consideration for overlap and differences. It is upon the nominator to convince others of usefulness of a merge, it should not be left to others having to guess about intentions and issues (4), even more so while these were explicitly mentioned in the earleir TfD. The nom is omitting this for the nth time in a TfD after being asked for, so I assume this omission is by intention this time (5). Finaly, I am missing the general thought behind this (form of) merge proposal. I still see not what is the greater aim of such proposals that have an association in common only. -DePiep (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ElPozo Murcia FS squad

Template:ElPozo Murcia FS squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Xota FS squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brazil Squad 1996 FIFA Futsal World Championship

Template:Brazil Squad 1996 FIFA Futsal World Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Brazil Squad 1992 FIFA Futsal World Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spain Squad 1992 FIFA Futsal World Championship

Template:Spain Squad 1992 FIFA Futsal World Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Spain Squad 1989 FIFA Futsal World Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Italy Squad 2005 UEFA Futsal Championship

Template:Italy Squad 2005 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Italy Squad 2003 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Italy Squad 2001 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Italy Squad 1999 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Italy Squad 1996 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portugal Squad 2000 FIFA Futsal World Championship

Template:Portugal Squad 2000 FIFA Futsal World Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Portugal Squad 1999 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Netherlands Squad 2014 UEFA Futsal Championship

Template:Netherlands Squad 2014 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Netherlands Squad 2005 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Netherlands Squad 2001 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Netherlands Squad 1999 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Netherlands Squad 1996 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Belgium Squad 2003 UEFA Futsal Championship

Template:Belgium Squad 2003 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Belgium Squad 1999 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Belgium Squad 1996 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Croatia Squad 2001 UEFA Futsal Championship

Template:Croatia Squad 2001 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Croatia Squad 2001 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Croatia Squad 1999 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Czech Republic Squad 2003 UEFA Futsal Championship

Template:Czech Republic Squad 2003 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Czech Republic Squad 2001 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Russia Squad 2001 UEFA Futsal Championship

Template:Russia Squad 2001 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Russia Squad 1999 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Russia Squad 1996 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Russia Squad 1996 FIFA Futsal World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ukraine Squad 2003 UEFA Futsal Championship

Template:Ukraine Squad 2003 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ukraine Squad 2001 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ukraine Squad 1996 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Slovenia Squad 2010 UEFA Futsal Championship

Template:Slovenia Squad 2010 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Slovenia Squad 2003 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iran Squad 1996 FIFA Futsal World Championship

Template:Iran Squad 1996 FIFA Futsal World Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ukrainian Women's Futsal Premiere League teamlist

Template:Ukrainian Women's Futsal Premiere League teamlist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Extra-Liga teamlist

Template:Extra-Liga teamlist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Futsal in Turkey

Template:Futsal in Turkey (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Switzerland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Slovakia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Serbia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Romania (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Papua New Guinea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Norway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Kazakhstan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Japan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Hungary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Georgia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Finland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Austria (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Denmark (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in the Czech Republic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Croatia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Bulgaria (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Bosnia and Herzegovina (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Belarus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Armenia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Fiji (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pan American Games Futsal

Template:Pan American Games Futsal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010–11 Nemzeti Bajnokság I (men's futsal) teamlist

Template:2010–11 Nemzeti Bajnokság I (men's futsal) teamlist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Georgian Futsal Super League

Template:Georgian Futsal Super League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Futsal at the Southeast Asian Games

Template:Futsal at the Southeast Asian Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Salisbury City F.C. managers

Template:Salisbury City F.C. managers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hayes F.C. managers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Farsley Celtic A.F.C. managers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Eastbourne Borough F.C. managers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Antigua Barracuda FC managers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bishop Auckland F.C. managers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox T&W Metro station

Redundant. Only 60 transclusions. Could be replaced by, merged into, or made a module of, {{Infobox GB station}}, or even {{Infobox station}}. Many of these stations are former mainline stations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 24 October 2014 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisted by request. My original close was no consensus, and I don't think there is, but merge suggestions have not been adequately addressed, and consensus may still be reached. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Before anything is merged it needs to be shown that a generic template does what is required here, not that it merely could. Everything above is basically "this template has features not supported by the generic template" vs "but the generic template has the potential to support those features", which hasn't got anywhere and wont get anywhere. So I suggest that those in favour of merging do the work so that this template either is redundant or it is clear that the generic template can't handle these specific uses. No arguments have been made against the concept of merging, so this should not be controversial. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Might I suggest that if any merging be done, it should be done under the guidance of WikiProject Trains and its associates, who should appreciate the subtleties of the British railway system. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as proposed by Andy. (This is in agreement with the "delete" of Jimp). — This, that and the other (talk) 06:54, 24 November 2014 (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) 01:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

University ranking templates

Template:Infobox Australian university ranking (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (2 transclusions)
Template:Infobox Canadian university rankings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (43 transclusions)
Template:Infobox India university ranking (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (82 transclusions)
Template:Infobox Japanese university ranking (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (19 transclusions)
Template:Infobox UK university rankings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (101 transclusions)
Template:Infobox US university ranking (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (277 transclusions)
Template:Infobox business school rankings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (67 transclusions)
Template:Infobox technical university ranking (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (5 transclusions)
Template:Infobox world university ranking (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (60 transclusions)

Propose merging all into Template:Infobox world university ranking; perhaps rename to {{Infobox university ranking}}; perhapas make a module of {{Infobox University}}.
No need for separate templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merging unless a convincing argument is made why having separate templates is problematic or undesirable; if there is already an essay or discussion on the desirability of large, complex metatemplates over smaller, simpler templates then please point me to it. Without such an argument, it seems like unnecessary and needless busywork merge templates simply because it's technically feasible. ElKevbo (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link; I suspected something like that might already exist. I'm afraid that I don't completely agree with it.
On a more specific note, if these templates are merged then the proposed merger to "Infobox world university ranking" is inappropriate because many of these rankings are not world rankings but national or regional. A more generic "university rankings" would seem more appropriate and accurate. I also request that if these templates are merged then specific examples for the most used defunct templates be explicitly provided in the documentation to help editors since many of the parameters of the new template would only apply to institutions in specific countries, especially those specific to U.S. institutions. It would help editors cut through the chaff. ElKevbo (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2014 (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) 01:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose for now. I started a demonstration merger of some of them into {{infobox university rankings}}, and will work on that further, but until there is some sense of the scale and structure of a merged template, it's really hard to say whether the upkeep will be more or less difficult. I will say that we should definitely merge some of them since there is substantial overlap between Australia and Canadian rankings. I imagine this will be the case for the UK and possibly for the US. The real danger is that this overlap becomes out-of-sync with one using 2013 rankings and the other using 2014 rankings from the same source. Frietjes (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. I'm largely supportive of a merger for the sake of standardization of the university articles. However, noting the large variety of national-based rankings, it seems to be an impossible task to create an all-encompassing template. As opposed to completely merging these templates, perhaps it would be more appropriate to only take the international rankings into the proposed template (i.e. the prevalent ones such as QS, ARWU, Times, Leiden, Newsweek, etc.), while leaving the present national templates for national-based rankings. This seems to achieve the interests of both opposed and for the merger. The national rankings are not excluded from articles (as these rankings still exist in their respective national templates), while Wikipedia also achieves a semblance of uniformity amongst its post-secondary article (through a standard international ranking template). Leventio (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose given that each of these countries has a distinct set of national league tables, merging would be messy. Keep things clean-cut and simple by keeping these templates seperate.Uhooep (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Publications that furnish rankings vary widely in their coverage of specific graduate fields, both in regard to methodology, scope and the extent of due diligence conducted. It simply would not make sense to converge everything in hopes of attaining some marginal benefit, if any. It is also likely to cause unnecessary upkeep and headaches, as many people have noted already. Newtonian7 18:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newtonian7 (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose. Omnibus (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. - In view of there being national rankings in most of these countries a merge wouldn't work from a practical perspective, although the goal of standarisation is good in theory.86.173.61.22 (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Welcome-anon-border

Template:Welcome-anon-border (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Welcome-anon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Welcome-anon-border with Template:Welcome-anon.
Very similar. The bordered version has clearer language. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if merged, all the bullet points missing from the bordered version should be added, and a switch to turn on/off the border should be available. {{Welcome-anon-noborder}} non-bordered template name should be an intermediate subst wrapper template that turns the border off, the resultant merge should be at {{Welcome-anon}}, and {{Welcome-anon-border}} should also be a wrapper that turns the border on (or whichever way is decided to be default, one being a redirect, the other being a wrapper) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would rather defeat the point of merging; resulting in no reduction to the confusingly large number of options available in tools such as Twinkle. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The code would be consolidated into one location (which I thought would be the purpose of merging), while only subst wrapper templates or redirects would occupy other locations. The TW user would be able to explicitly pick a bordered or unbordered version. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why would we need two different presentations of the same content? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why have more than one welcome template at all? Personal preference of the welcomer. We have many different welcoming templates that are for standard welcoming, so why not allow the welcomer to choose if they want to box it or not? -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 09:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your question is a reductio ad absurdum fallacy. Maintaining separate templates for individuals' stylistic preferences is WP:BIKESHEDing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • A merger will consolidate the code. Wrappers and redirects are only helpful shortcuts. Optional presentation in the consolidated code is simple. If we consolidate the code without options on presentation then it should not be boxed because the box will swallow the TOC if the welcome message is the first item on the talk page and additional items appear prompting the TOC to appear. Thus the default presentation should be boxless. If we're looking to it from an Twinkle point of view, the redirects/wrappers ease use because they specify what kind of presentation is available. If you want to reduce Twinkle congestion, then you should really be nominating both templates for deletion instead of merger, since there are many other welcoming templates around. As it is, you are nominating these for merger, so I still don't see why we shouldn't have these, as you're not reducing the clutter by much, and clarity of naming with the redirects/wrappers is a better option. If you want to reduce clutter, then deleting both these templates is the better option because of the many other welcoming templates around. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2014 (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) 01:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_29&oldid=636892105"