Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 25
March 25
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep No consensus at all for deletion. Seems like it could use some discussion and sandboxing on the template's talk page. Anomie⚔ 00:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Near-duplicate of {{Infobox F1 team}}, which just needs |last_race= adding. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. 65.92.181.184 (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support nomination. Jared Preston (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - The two templates have two clearly defined purposes. The {{Infobox F1 team}} for current teams is worded for current staff and then uses a separate section for 2012 information, while {{Infobox former F1 team}} has separate driver/staff/engine fields for the main drivers/staff/engines over the course of their life. It's not really a near-duplicate and it's not just a case of adding
|last_race=, they are structured differently for different purposes. QueenCake (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)- That doesn't benefit the encyclopedia. Current teams should not be treated like current news to the detriment of their historic achievements. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - As QueenCake points out, the two infoboxes have very different internal structures, directly relating to the fact that one deals with dominantly current events and the other to historical data. The difference is made as most people looking at a current team's page want the current data given priority, and to include the same quantity of historical data as is included in the former teams' box would start to push the practical limits of what is supposed to be a succinct summary of the essential points of an article's subject. Pyrope 00:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Treating current and historical subjects differently is a fairly blatant case of WP:RECENTISM. A merge would not demand that more data be included in either case, though it may require the documentation for these templates to be improved to explain which fields were appropriate in which cases. But that's something which should be left to editorial discretion rather than enforced by some technical trick which increases the burden of maintenance on both the templates and the articles that use them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously how we internally name a template is not related to WP:RECENTISM, which is a content issue. --hydrox (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- This appears to miss the point being made. It is recentism to have different infoboxes for current and defunct teams, just as it would be recentism to have different infoboxes for living and dead people. This is indeed a content issue, and one which should be addressed socially through discussion and documentation rather than technically through redundant and overlapping templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- What a very odd comment. On the one hand you have an article subject that exists solely as a historical entity, whose involvement in the current sport is zero, and for whom notability of various pieces of information has to be judged and presented in the context of their entire career. On the other, you have an entity that is a current and evolving presence, and for whom their present structure and involvement in the sport is very likely to be the first piece of information that a casual reader, arriving on a page, is likely to want. Historical data is not excluded from the current team infobox, far from it, but it is presented in such a way that it is not the dominant feature. Far from missing the point made, I think you are missing the meaning of the WP:RECENTISM page. The page certainly does not argue that recently relevant subject cannot be presented in a different manner to purely historically relevant ones, just that recent history should not be presented to the exclusion of the historical. As far as having "redundant and overlapping templates" go, that's just one point of view. A counter argument could easily be made that the current Wikipedia fashion for bloated, overly complex, behemoth templates is a trend to be avoided, and where enough pages likely to use a certain template exist it is far better to construct an operationally elegant, simple, straightforward infobox that can be easily understood, implemented, edited and modified by a casual editor and not just by those with PhDs in structural logic. Pyrope 14:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- That "current Wikipedia fashion" is known as "consensus". There's nothing in your comment which wouldn't equally apply to any other subject which had a past and present status, and yet overwhelmingly Wikipedia uses the same infobox for both in order not to unduly weight present subjects towards their immediate actions as opposed to their overall influence in the world. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Consensus means a general agreement on the way forward, not simple majority voting. As you will see, this issue is far from consensus here, and where consensus cannot be reached the status quo is retained. As ever on Wikipedia, "other stuff exists" is a pretty thin argument. Your assumption that the present structure results in undue weight to recent events is still odd, as by my eyes the present team box is split about 50:50 recent and historical, which seems about right given the nature of the subjects. Try judging an argument on its specifics instead of defaulting to a generic response. Pyrope 16:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- That "current Wikipedia fashion" is known as "consensus". There's nothing in your comment which wouldn't equally apply to any other subject which had a past and present status, and yet overwhelmingly Wikipedia uses the same infobox for both in order not to unduly weight present subjects towards their immediate actions as opposed to their overall influence in the world. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- What a very odd comment. On the one hand you have an article subject that exists solely as a historical entity, whose involvement in the current sport is zero, and for whom notability of various pieces of information has to be judged and presented in the context of their entire career. On the other, you have an entity that is a current and evolving presence, and for whom their present structure and involvement in the sport is very likely to be the first piece of information that a casual reader, arriving on a page, is likely to want. Historical data is not excluded from the current team infobox, far from it, but it is presented in such a way that it is not the dominant feature. Far from missing the point made, I think you are missing the meaning of the WP:RECENTISM page. The page certainly does not argue that recently relevant subject cannot be presented in a different manner to purely historically relevant ones, just that recent history should not be presented to the exclusion of the historical. As far as having "redundant and overlapping templates" go, that's just one point of view. A counter argument could easily be made that the current Wikipedia fashion for bloated, overly complex, behemoth templates is a trend to be avoided, and where enough pages likely to use a certain template exist it is far better to construct an operationally elegant, simple, straightforward infobox that can be easily understood, implemented, edited and modified by a casual editor and not just by those with PhDs in structural logic. Pyrope 14:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- This appears to miss the point being made. It is recentism to have different infoboxes for current and defunct teams, just as it would be recentism to have different infoboxes for living and dead people. This is indeed a content issue, and one which should be addressed socially through discussion and documentation rather than technically through redundant and overlapping templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously how we internally name a template is not related to WP:RECENTISM, which is a content issue. --hydrox (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Treating current and historical subjects differently is a fairly blatant case of WP:RECENTISM. A merge would not demand that more data be included in either case, though it may require the documentation for these templates to be improved to explain which fields were appropriate in which cases. But that's something which should be left to editorial discretion rather than enforced by some technical trick which increases the burden of maintenance on both the templates and the articles that use them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - per Queencake and Pyrope. DH85868993 (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2012 (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) 21:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose How we call the template internally is not a WP:RECENTISM issue. And if there was a point to merging the two templates, I think the above comments show it is not so trivial after all. --hydrox (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking as the person who actually converted the templates into their current format, I feel I've some degree of authority when it comes to dissecting their implementation. A merge would take in the order of minutes to accomplish. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- The issue is not the name of an individual template, but the fact that we have two similar templates, thereby increasing confusion for editors and workload for template maintainers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not just template maintainers. Editors should not need to worry about which infobox to use in a given situation, or why the present infobox wasn't working when intuitively updated to match similar articles, especially as the vast majority of the encyclopedia's infoboxes do not have this past/present dichotomy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you can construct an infobox that maintains the current balance between historical and recent information, that doesn't give undue prominence to the historical data in the case of a recent team, doesn't expand to run for metres down a page, and doesn't require implementation documentation that needs a good 10-15 minutes to read and understand before you can use the infobox, then I'd be interested in seeing it in your sandbox. This is not a simple case of just adding one field to the current team template; there are perfectly justified structural, presentational, and logical differences between the two templates that would have to be maintained for a merge to be appropriate. Pyrope 14:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've already addressed this above. The argument that a merge would result in articles on current teams being filled with historical trivia is a straw man: nobody is compelled to fill in every single available field on an infobox, and it is the place of the template's documentation (and the associated WikiProject, who are certainly diligent enough in turning up at TfDs) to ensure that editors are aware of what information is appropriate in what context. The "structural differences" between the templates are minimal. I'm happy to knock up a sandbox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- ...and so we have to go through that argument again, and again, and again, with every new implementation of the infobox, every alteration to an existing infobox, and with every trivia junkie who has just bought the Big Book of F1 Facts. The attitude that "well, there's a field there so I might as well/should populate it" is extremely common, and although you rightly point out that not all fields must be populated, by providing them you very strongly imply that filling them would be appropriate and justified. This is far from a "straw man" argument, so please don't trivialise it in such a way, and actually address how you would solve it. I'd point out that in the dim and distant past we did indeed have only one infobox, but even with its then fairly simple format this problem cropped up so many times that a wholly separate infobox was created so that time and effort was not wasted on endless trivia reversions and the subsequent arguments about each single occasion. Having the infoboxes kept simple and pertinent to the article they are within focuses attention and prevents confusion, and makes life a lot more simple when addition of a new field can be discussed solely at the infobox page rather than wherever the addition happens to crop up. You are very astute in noticing that WP:F1 is a lively, enthused and engaged bunch, that's why I like being a part of it, but to foist upon us the responsibility for monitoring multiple implementations of a badly constructed, overly broad, poorly thought out infobox is a bit rich. Why not just have one infobox for every article possible? Why do buildings require different infoboxes from people? Why should countries be treated any differently than animals? Surely you could construct a form of syntax with enough features that any conceivable subject can be addressed? Why wouldn't you want to do that? Because it would be stupidly large and cumbersome. Why make an infobox any more complex than it has to be? Pyrope 16:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- I find it odd that above you accuse me of boilerplate responses while making a textbook "slippery slope to one infobox for everything" argument here. Documenting what is and is not appropriate to add to an infobox in a certain context works perfectly well for other infoboxes (and not, that is not an OTHERSTUFF argument: it's a simple rebuttal to your assertion that doing so wouldn't be practical), including the box for football player biographies (which is, at present, the third-most deployed infobox on the project, and the core infobox for a Wikiproject even more active than the F1 project). As for "foist[ing] upon us the responsibility for monitoring multiple implementations of a badly constructed, overly broad, poorly thought out infobox", the person currently maintaining F1's infoboxes for the most part is me, and if you've any concerns over my technical ability then I'd hear them made directly instead of sneakily implied. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Which sneaky implication, I think you are reading more there than there is. As for my "slippery slope" argument, you've managed to read that wrongly as well. My point was that we do not have a single infobox, for very good reasons. The football template example is a poor one, as that template's structure is essentially additive. Data for former players, players who became managers, and so on, are not presented in any different form, just that sections which do not apply are left out. This is exactly my point regarding the Formula One infobox. By this model you would have to ungroup some historical data (such as a team's location history, staff history, etc.) from the historical data in general in order to present it with the present data. Or would you leave out some historical data from the former team box? Or would you have to put historical data in one field for a current team but in a different field for a former team? How do you cope with the different title? How do you cope with teams that at some points ran their own chassis, as true constructors, and at others were customers of another constructor? What I was asking from you was some tangible, precise solutions to the various questions that would be thrown up by integrating the two boxes. Note that I am not intrinsically opposed to integrating the boxes if it can be proven that these issues can be overcome (as I said above) but that I tend toward the "if it aint broke, don't fix it" approach. You haven't yet shown that either of these boxes are broken, just that your sense of tidyness and order doesn't like them being separate. Offer some proper solutions. Pyrope 13:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- As I said, I'm happy to knock up a sandbox. Ordinarily, were I to propose merging two templates like this, I would do that in advance, but this isn't actually my nomination and as such I had no such opportunity. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Which sneaky implication, I think you are reading more there than there is. As for my "slippery slope" argument, you've managed to read that wrongly as well. My point was that we do not have a single infobox, for very good reasons. The football template example is a poor one, as that template's structure is essentially additive. Data for former players, players who became managers, and so on, are not presented in any different form, just that sections which do not apply are left out. This is exactly my point regarding the Formula One infobox. By this model you would have to ungroup some historical data (such as a team's location history, staff history, etc.) from the historical data in general in order to present it with the present data. Or would you leave out some historical data from the former team box? Or would you have to put historical data in one field for a current team but in a different field for a former team? How do you cope with the different title? How do you cope with teams that at some points ran their own chassis, as true constructors, and at others were customers of another constructor? What I was asking from you was some tangible, precise solutions to the various questions that would be thrown up by integrating the two boxes. Note that I am not intrinsically opposed to integrating the boxes if it can be proven that these issues can be overcome (as I said above) but that I tend toward the "if it aint broke, don't fix it" approach. You haven't yet shown that either of these boxes are broken, just that your sense of tidyness and order doesn't like them being separate. Offer some proper solutions. Pyrope 13:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- I find it odd that above you accuse me of boilerplate responses while making a textbook "slippery slope to one infobox for everything" argument here. Documenting what is and is not appropriate to add to an infobox in a certain context works perfectly well for other infoboxes (and not, that is not an OTHERSTUFF argument: it's a simple rebuttal to your assertion that doing so wouldn't be practical), including the box for football player biographies (which is, at present, the third-most deployed infobox on the project, and the core infobox for a Wikiproject even more active than the F1 project). As for "foist[ing] upon us the responsibility for monitoring multiple implementations of a badly constructed, overly broad, poorly thought out infobox", the person currently maintaining F1's infoboxes for the most part is me, and if you've any concerns over my technical ability then I'd hear them made directly instead of sneakily implied. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- ...and so we have to go through that argument again, and again, and again, with every new implementation of the infobox, every alteration to an existing infobox, and with every trivia junkie who has just bought the Big Book of F1 Facts. The attitude that "well, there's a field there so I might as well/should populate it" is extremely common, and although you rightly point out that not all fields must be populated, by providing them you very strongly imply that filling them would be appropriate and justified. This is far from a "straw man" argument, so please don't trivialise it in such a way, and actually address how you would solve it. I'd point out that in the dim and distant past we did indeed have only one infobox, but even with its then fairly simple format this problem cropped up so many times that a wholly separate infobox was created so that time and effort was not wasted on endless trivia reversions and the subsequent arguments about each single occasion. Having the infoboxes kept simple and pertinent to the article they are within focuses attention and prevents confusion, and makes life a lot more simple when addition of a new field can be discussed solely at the infobox page rather than wherever the addition happens to crop up. You are very astute in noticing that WP:F1 is a lively, enthused and engaged bunch, that's why I like being a part of it, but to foist upon us the responsibility for monitoring multiple implementations of a badly constructed, overly broad, poorly thought out infobox is a bit rich. Why not just have one infobox for every article possible? Why do buildings require different infoboxes from people? Why should countries be treated any differently than animals? Surely you could construct a form of syntax with enough features that any conceivable subject can be addressed? Why wouldn't you want to do that? Because it would be stupidly large and cumbersome. Why make an infobox any more complex than it has to be? Pyrope 16:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've already addressed this above. The argument that a merge would result in articles on current teams being filled with historical trivia is a straw man: nobody is compelled to fill in every single available field on an infobox, and it is the place of the template's documentation (and the associated WikiProject, who are certainly diligent enough in turning up at TfDs) to ensure that editors are aware of what information is appropriate in what context. The "structural differences" between the templates are minimal. I'm happy to knock up a sandbox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you can construct an infobox that maintains the current balance between historical and recent information, that doesn't give undue prominence to the historical data in the case of a recent team, doesn't expand to run for metres down a page, and doesn't require implementation documentation that needs a good 10-15 minutes to read and understand before you can use the infobox, then I'd be interested in seeing it in your sandbox. This is not a simple case of just adding one field to the current team template; there are perfectly justified structural, presentational, and logical differences between the two templates that would have to be maintained for a merge to be appropriate. Pyrope 14:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not just template maintainers. Editors should not need to worry about which infobox to use in a given situation, or why the present infobox wasn't working when intuitively updated to match similar articles, especially as the vast majority of the encyclopedia's infoboxes do not have this past/present dichotomy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Close My take on above is that this template can not be merged right now. If and when it can be, it should be re-nominated (or maybe even replaced outright per WP:BOLD if the change is only technical). --hydrox (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - per Queencake and Pyrope. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment {{Infobox former country}}. Krhm... Precedent, anyone? ;) --hydrox (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Examples could be shown with the opposite precedent. That's one of the reasons we don't consider random examples to be strong arguments. Nevertheless, I'm not opposed to closing on the grounds that the work hasn't been done, to be revisited if and when that happens. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 and redirect. Go to it. Anomie⚔ 00:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Redundant to {{Infobox hockey team}} (Floorball is a variety of hockey). Only 23 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 17 March 2012 (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) 21:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- merge and redirect. Frietjes (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was No consensus You'd do better to discuss these on the templates' talk pages and have a plan for merging the dissimilar templates. Anomie⚔ 00:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox garden (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Redundant to {{Infobox park}} (which, despite its name, also covers gardens), with no clear deliniation of subjects. Some fields will need to be copied across and given the name issue, a redirect should be created. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Merger—per redundancies. Imzadi 1979 → 12:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - the reason this was created was because the park template was not designed to list what a garden infobox should have (thus why many garden articles lacked infoboxes), which the nominator implicitly concedes. There are many redundancies, but this is fairly common amongst all infoboxes (say name, location, picture, start/established/foundation, etc.). I also find it rather humorous that simply because someone wrote in the documentation that the park template also covers gardens that that somehow means it does (which was added after the garden infobox was created). So, if we write that the garden one also covers restaurants (many duplicative fields) that we should merge it into the garden one, and then both into the park template? Anyway, if the template cabal was to continue its march towards a universal infobox (perhaps merge {{Infobox protected area}} into the park one as well), so be it. Just please include a garden example in the sample uses, and obviously the fields specific to gardens. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's not merely what the documentation says, but how the template is actually used. Your "universal infobox" comments are a straw man; TINC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Actually no. Sorry. But your response was a straw man (as in trying to pretty much dismiss my entire comment by saying it is a straw man, props for the balls on that man). You see, I laid out exactly why the template was created and explained that there were differences and properly attacked your assertion that somehow they were "redundant". I even pointed out the hypocrisy of calling it redundant, yet you implicitly admit they are not. That argument, which is the main argument, is not a straw man.
- As to your TINC comment, that was merely a parting shot, and even taking the time to address it only reinforces why people think there are cabals. The thing is, a cabal is not necessarily an organized thing that you even really know exists, but where you have a group of editors with a history of trying to do the same thing, then you have a cabal. Again, you may not recognize it, but that does not mean it does not exist. The fact that you have a history of trying to reduce the number of templates, and there are more editors with the same like mindedness, shows there is a cabal in part dedicated to reducing the number of templates. I'm not opposed to reducing the number, as there are too many. But if you drop down to say 10 infoboxes, you tend to dilute what the purpose of infoboxes is, which is to provide some fairly standardized bits of key info across similar articles. Otherwise, really, just use the generic infobox. But please, lets keep this off-topic and we can go on for days about the cabal, straw men (how about burning man too), logic arguments in general (red herrings anyone), and even the finer points of template documentation. Anything but addressing the differences between the park and garden infoboxes, right? Aboutmovies (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't try to dismiss your entire comment by saying it is a straw man; I said that your "universal infobox" comments are a straw man. Just as your hyperbolic "10 infoboxes" is a straw man. And I have never admitted that the nominated template is redundant to the other, implicitly or not. there is no hypocrisy in pointing out the redundancy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, you did, to both. First, since your only response related to redundancies was your straw man bit, that means you're only argument concerning redundancies was a straw man. You did not try to refute that these are not redundant, except to claim straw man.
- My 10 infoboxes is hyperbole, but not a straw man. Again, that is part of the argument that infoboxes that merely overlap does not mean we should combine them all into a limited number of infoboxes. Please actually address my argument instead of throwing out claims of straw man. If that's your only argument, well ...
- As to an implicit admission, perhaps you don't quite get what redundant is, which is problematic given your propensity for nominating templates for deletion based on that contention. Redundant would be where the infoboxes are in essence identical, not simialar, and not just overlapping. But identical in content coverage. Maybe the field names may differ a bit (location instead of place, or opened instead of established), but they cover the same information. Here, we do not have that, and it is that part that you admitted: "Some fields will need to be copied across". As in, you recognize that some fields are different. Specifically, "plants", "species", and "collections" do not exist in the parks infobox, because frankly parks don't need those fields. Instead, those are the key fields for a garden. Thus, these are not redundant. Do they overlap a lot, yes, but as stated above, most infoboxes do. Again, delete if you must, as that is what you are known for, but please, do not kid yourself that these are redundant. I've shown they are not. Now, copy those fields to the park infobox and then they are, but as I've said before, you could do that into a few infoboxes. But, again (another argument you have not actually addressed) having only a few infboxes defeats the reason we have infoboxes. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't try to dismiss your entire comment by saying it is a straw man; I said that your "universal infobox" comments are a straw man. Just as your hyperbolic "10 infoboxes" is a straw man. And I have never admitted that the nominated template is redundant to the other, implicitly or not. there is no hypocrisy in pointing out the redundancy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's not merely what the documentation says, but how the template is actually used. Your "universal infobox" comments are a straw man; TINC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:07, 13 March 2012 (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) 19:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Good concept, such as for notable palace gardens, estates or sites which have large gardens (not considered "parks" but castle or estate gardens, or multiple gardens inside a park). The {{Infobox garden}} might be used within the lower parts of an article, to describe the less-notable garden section(s) of a site, as to area, slope, indoor/outdoor, trees, flowers, seasons, waterfalls/ponds, statues, etc. Perhaps this {Infobox garden} needs more parameters. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- You don't say why you believe that {{Infobox garden}} is not suitable for such cases. Please do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 redirect to {{infobox school}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Redundant to {{infobox school}} (or possibly {{Infobox university}}. Only 26 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 12 March 2012 (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) 19:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- delete after replacing with template:infobox school. Frietjes (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 Speedy. My and other editors contribs were not significant, so passes G7. Rich Farmbrough, 16:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Redundant to {{Indian general elections results by alliance 2009}} - Chandan Guha (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned template, unused and unlikely to be used. A district will either need a navbox to the India one or the Pakistan one, never both. Muhandes (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'd put it on the disambiguation page, but some of the disambiguation lawyers know where I live. Rich Farmbrough, 16:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
- I'd put it on the disambiguation page, but some of the disambiguation lawyers know where I live. Rich Farmbrough, 16:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
- 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.
- 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 Speedy. Other editors contribs were not significant, so passes G7. Rich Farmbrough, 16:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Redundant to {{West Bengal 2009 election summary}} - Chandan Guha (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy G7 was wrongly declined here. the only other edits were a disambiguation and cliche replaced with a template. Rich Farmbrough, 16:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
- 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.