Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 2

< July 1	July 3 >

July 2

Template:United States Squad 2004 U-19 Women's World Championship

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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States Squad 2004 U-19 Women's World Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

After discussions at WP:Football, youth tournament templates should not be created. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 22:15, 2 July 2010 (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 skyscraper

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, using the best features from each template (e.g., layout and pushpin map) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redundant to Template:Infobox building. There is also a great deal of inconsistency in what is used, differeint documentation which should be simplified etc. This proposal is to merge given that the parameters are almost identical to infobox building and infobox building has the pushpin map option which ifnobox skyscraper does not. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge - the few skyscraper-specific parameters like year_highest and year_end can easily be merged to Infobox building. エムエックスさん話 00:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Makes no sense to have two different templates that are nearly identical. Also, if those fields can be integrated into Building, then there's no reason to not get rid of it. —Onore Baka Sama^{(speak | stalk)} 01:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I merged most if not all of the outstanding parameters into infobox building a few weeks back the rest were the same anyway. Also infobox building has a fully functioning pin map facility which this does not have. Any trasition to infobox building naturally will be done without losing any data of course. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment {{Infobox skyscraper}} has a sectioned layout that I find more aesthetically pleasing than the rather bland {{Infobox building}} There's also a "Status" field that doesn't seem to exist in Infobox building.[1] Perhaps Infobox building should be replaced by Infobox skyscraper instead of the other way around. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Infobox Skyscraper seems to repeat most of the data found within Infobox building, BUT... it does have some things that Infobox Building does not, and it seems to be laid-out better...perhaps we should merge the data into Infobox Building, and update Infobox Building's layout? Alternately, only have Infobox Skyscraper used on buildings that are 25+ floors? RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 14:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Infobox skyscraper has good features and has a better sectioned lay-out design and framing, so that should be kept. The titled detail bars and headings are helpful, and improve understanding and skyscraper template looks better. The ability to incorporate or embed National Register of Historic Places, National Historic Landmark, U.S. Historic District information are highly desireable features that Infobox skyscraper allows after "architect". The flexability is helpful, no need to limit Infobox skyscraper. Its a good tool, make it better don't take it away. Agree that all the good features and lay-out of infobox skyscraper should be kept if there is a merging, since infobox skycraper has the better lay-out.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it is missing some vital components like pushpin map... It is easy to merge. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Thomas Paine1776's rationale. Zonafan39 (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: 'skyscraper' does look better, but i suppose that's the whole idea of a merging...to retain the best features of both. --emerson7 03:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per others, the functionality and layout of {{Infobox skyscraper}} should be included in {{Infobox building}}. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thomas Paine1776's, certainly not redundant, we should make it better than taking away/merged. KuwarOnline ^Talk 06:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Thomas Paine1776. Gage (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually planning on adding subclassing to {{infobox building}} which will allow for it to be used for skyscrapers, churches et cetera by adding in "modules" for each, as with {{infobox person}}. Check that template's talk out for further details. Suffice to say that this is still at a relatively early point in development, but in the long run it's better than making {{infobox building}} monolithic and hundreds of LOC long. TP1776's concerns would be better addressed with that approach. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nearly identical. Subclassing as mentioned by Chris Cunningham is preferred, but not necessary for a merge. jonkerz ♠ 00:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it not necessary, it is exclusive to a merge. The point about {{infobox building}} getting monolithic and thus unmanageable stands. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per Thomas Paine. If it is indeed merged, the functionality and layout must remain intact; however if {{infobox building}} is deemed untweakable (or monolithic, etc), then the two distinct templates are required. -M.Nelson (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thomas Paine1776. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but only if merged properly so that the entire template's function can be preserved. --Der yck C. 07:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can be 100% assured that the idea is to merge the whole parameters so nothing is lost. The parameters are mostly identical to infobox building so this template is redundant. So nothing is lost and an obvious redundancy in having dual infoboxes is removed. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Burpelson. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I also think that the skyscraper infobox and the building share the same data and parameters, so the skyscraper infobox should be merge into the building infobox. Jim856796 (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all foregoing. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 00:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The skyscraper infobox and the building share almost the same data and parameters. BINOY ^Talk 05:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I would merge infobox building into infobox skyscraper and delete the building inforbox. --Shorty23sin (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that would be a very poor idea given that infobox building is used in a diversity of articles from tall buildings to city halls, to historic archiecture. Deary me, did you even look at the useage of infobox building compared to infobox skyscraper? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you? There are 2,743 uses of {{Infobox building}} but 2,932 uses of {{Infobox skyscraper}}. Regardless of the fact that Infobox skyscraper is used more than Infobox building, we have this great thing called a redirect so I don't see the problem. That said, all skyscrapers are buildings but not all buildings are skyscrapers so {{Infobox building}} is the more appropriate location for the template. The best solution here remains for any additional functionality and the better layout of Infobox skyscraper to be merged into Infobox building. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: I've just made a direct comparison in my userspace of the the two templates.[2] Infobox building's map function is superior to skyscraper but skyscraper's layout is superior. There are a number of fields that don't port directly from skyscraper to building and an example of this is shown on the linked page. While skyscraper labels |engineer= "Structural engineer", building only calls this "Engineer". These issues would need to be addressed in the merge. (Duh!) --AussieLegend (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Deryck C. (the skyscraper template is better laid out, e.g. the greyed section headings; keeping that would be good) and AussieLegend (merge but "building" is the more accurate name given the proposed template's scope). Blofeld is right - the two templates are quite obviously redundant so the onus is on the keeps to justify its existence. Miracle Pen (talk)
Keep I don't think the pushpin map is particularly important for skyscrapers (or buildings) unless we are considering adding a street map for the surrounding area (IMHO, a pushpin on a country/state map is pretty useless for a building article). The Infobox skyscraper does include several skyscraper specific features that are used many skyscraper articles. For example, a lot of though has gone into the automatic status creation, and the height record fields (like year_highest) are used in many record breaking skyscrapers. That said, Chris Cunningham's proposed subclassing sounds promising, but I would like to see it working well, before any decision on merge/delete is made here. Astronaut (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Street map is exactly what I'm talking about. See Chicago landmarks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, I couldn't find any street map on Chicago landmarks. The kind of thing that I think should be avoided is like the infobox on James Charnley House; that map doesn't add anything to the article except indicating it might be somewhere near Chicago. In fact, having looked at around 20 or more articles linked on the Chicago landmarks page, of those that show a map, all of them so far have been with a red dot on a map of Illinois. Astronaut (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Additional comment I'm surprised Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers wasn't notified of this discussion - I have done so now. Astronaut (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Let me explain based on the two main issues: parameters and layout. Parameter-wise, I'm getting the strong impression they are nearly identical and can be merged without any implications. As for the layout, the infobox skyscraper seems more aesthetically pleasing and better structured than infobox building. We can blend the layout of both infoboxes and produce a final one that is better than the two existing ones. Find me at my talk page if you want a reply, thanks. AngChenrui (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment Countless skyscraper articles use the skyscraper infobox, we must ensure a smooth transition to the building infobox should the skyscraper infobox be deleted. AngChenrui (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I quite like the light grey structuring for skyscraper. I say that infobox building is updated with this structuring in light grey and then merged fully. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:00, 12 July 2010 (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:43 most populous cities of Australia

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 per author approval Plastikspork (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:43 most populous cities of Australia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Misleading, unused template that was created to replace {{Cities of Australia}} without discussion at WP:AUSTRALIA. The creator added it to numerous articles, in most instances replacing {{Cities of Australia}}. On every article he added it to, the change was reverted. It is misleading as the figures are not actually for cities, but for statistical areas used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Subsequent discussion at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#New_template_replacing_.7B.7BCities_of_Australia.7D.7D resulted in no support and subsequent removal from the remaining articles to which it had been added. AussieLegend (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pointless and obviously redundant to Cities of Australia. エムエックスさん話 01:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and delete it, and I apologise for creating the template and replacing without consultation. More information can be found here Andyman14 (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2010 (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.