Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 6 April 8 >

April 7[edit]

Template:Infobox military award[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).

The result of the discussion was do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox military award with Template:Infobox order.
WP:INFOCOL. Template:Infobox military award was recently set (Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_19#Template:Infobox_military_award) to merge with Template:Infobox award. However, even if that may well, happen, would it be an idea to (at least) scrap variables and styles from it and merge these with Template:Infobox order, creating a Template:Infobox distinction (or Template:Infobox decoration, which was its former name)? I'm wondering if not orders and decorations (wearable medals) - sometimes together referred to as distinctions - have variable which are overlapping to a degree so that a merge could be considered? Isn't there significant taxonomic overlap in both decorations? Obvsiously, as a last resort, Template:Infobox order could follow suit and merge into Template:Infobox award along with Template:Infobox military award, as previously discussed and for the same reaons, and the "Television/radio coverage" would have to stuffed in there together with the rest? However, I'm not sure such a large Template:Infobox award would be beneficial. If so, perhaps make "Television/radio coverage" an embed template for awards where relevant? PPEMES (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The proposal would result in a situation that rejects reality rather than reflect it. Military awards and orders are not roughly equivalent nor is there a clear topical hierarchy between awards and orders. Many orders that have been or are awarded around the world are not awarded to military personnel or the order has separate military and civilian sections. On the other hand, most military awards are not related to orders and never have been. None of the criteria of WP:MERGEREASON apply to the proposal to combine these templates. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Especially in the American context, there are distinctions called "military orders" which are in facts medals. And there are orders which are not much more than a medal. Doesn't that suggest a merge? PPEMES (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PPEMES:, no. it does not. First of all, we are supposed to avoid systematic bias as much as possible which your American-centirc context does not. The most famous military orders are very, very much more than just medals. Taken literally, "military order", in fact, means nothing like what you're talking about. The Knights Hospitaller and Knights Templar and Knights of Malta are military orders. The type of "order" to which this template applies includes them and sovereign dynastic orders such as the Order of the Garter and the Order of Merit. None of these are "not much more than a medal". Secondly, I suspect you are thinking of the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States or the Military Order of Foreign Wars which are, in fact, veteran's organizations. These are therefore not military awards and lumping them in with either awards or the military and dynastic orders is equally inapt. In short, any grounds for merger rests on a limited perspective that is not even correct in its own context. Please withdraw the nomination. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To take one of your examples, Order of Merit. Which of the variables of its infobox could absolutely not be merged into a Template:Infobox distinction or Template:Infobox decoration, according to your perspective, should you not mind me awefully inquiring? PPEMES (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons given by Eggishorn. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1) agree with Eggishorn. You presume too much. Orders and military awards are not necessarily the same thing. 2) This is hardly helpful. Template:Infobox distinction does not exist; Template:Infobox decoration is a redirect. There has been a snow squall of proposed mergers in recent days; "if it's not broke..." Manannan67 (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons given by Eggishorn. --IndexAccount (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the clear reasons given by Eggishorn. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2020 (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).

Template:Infobox monarchy[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).

The result of the discussion was do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox monarchy with Template:Infobox hereditary title.
This, in a way, follows the same logic with which both "infobox royal family" and "infobox noble family" where merged into "infobox family" (under my nomination). In a way, "infobox monarchy" could ultimately be considered a "infobox hereditary royal title", whereas "infobox hereditary title" is supposed to encapsulate any titles non-royal, including the hypothetical "infobox hereditary noble title". Thus, a merge is adviced. On a sidenote, please note that I have nominated Template talk:Infobox hereditary title fort article rename request to "infobox title". PPEMES (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose First there is a proposal to merge "infobox monarchy" into to "infobox hereditary title"; then there is a simultaneous proposal to move "Infobox hereditary title" (which only last February was moved from "Infobox nobility title") to just plain "Infobox title". So it appears this discussion is about merging "infobox monarchy" into a destination that the proposer plans to no longer exist. Say what? Manannan67 (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't yet moved. I'd like to see the name discussion as separate. PPEMES (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly that discussion should be held first, so people would know to where it is to be moved. This proposal is premature, at the very least. Manannan67 (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It could be closed now, but I then would still have advocated for its reopening afterwards. I don't see how that ongoing requestor its outcome would necessarly condition this above nomination? PPEMES (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Cf. Template:Infobox official post. PPEMES (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A monarchy is far more than a mere hereditary name. It's an actual government position (head of state, even in a constitutional monarchy). It's as much eligible to be merged into {{infobox office}}. This ignores fundamental differences and actual comprehension of the subject in favor of looking at just how the infobox is coded. That is a poor course of action. oknazevad (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. If Template:Infobox monarchy should be merged into Template:Infobox official post, then why shouldn't Template:Infobox hereditary title do that too? PPEMES (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying none of the three should be merged. Merging {{Infobox hereditary title}} in {{infobox official post}} would be a mistake because titles don't always have actual functions. And the monarchy one shouldn't be merged into either of them because it has too much of the other two in it. When a type of subject overlaps two separate other categories, and therefore would be a poor fit for either of them individually, then having a separate infobox for that one alone is the right solution, not to merge it with either of the other two. And a three-way merge is plainly a poor solution, as it would result in a bloated mess of a template this is difficult to use and have needless parameters. That's the problem with the "merge anything with any overlap" mentality, the result is a Frankenstein's monster of an infobox that's a maintenance headache. Merging for the sake of merging is never a good idea. oknazevad (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per numerous reasons above.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2020 (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).

Template:Infobox clan[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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox clan with Template:Infobox family.
WP:INFOCOL: Ultimately, a clan is a kind of family? If it wasnt, it should lean towards being a Template:Infobox tribe, but I don't find that makes sense. Infobox clan, if it remains, could benefit from mirroring some of the variables in Template:Infobox family. As could Template:Infobox family from Template:Infobox clan: "slogan", "battle cry", totem ("animal"), "seat", "historic seat". "Sept" article says "a division of a family, especially of a Scottish or Irish family". Perhaps that variable should after all be merged into "branches" variables, or else be kept, either as "sept" or as "division"? "Clan branches", "Allied clans", "Rival clans" could all be used as "Branches", "Allies" and "Rivals" in the merged infobox, and thus be used for any family where relevant. In specific clans, it the infobox would inform "Scottish clan" in the "type" variable just under the name, and then the variables "Allies" and "Rivals" would say Clan X and Clan Y, which would make it clear that clans are regarded under these variables, So nothing has to be changed in the very clan articles after a potential merge in these variables. "Ethnicity" has been abolished as variable in previous, general discussions, I gather. Most families may not have a "music" associated with it, such as indicated by the can infobox, but what do I know? Certainly there has to be some perhaps royal or noble families out there that do? Thus even that variable would benefit in a merged template. Lastly, "chief", "crest" and perhaps "badge" variables could use a little discussion on how to distribute these variables properly in a potentially merged infobox, so as to give a natural order of things visual. Please note: I prevously nominated this merge before: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_28#Template:Infobox_clan. But now I have attached more WP:INFOCOL arguments which perhaps be of service? PPEMES (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you present a mockup of what you anticipate a merged template would look like? It's difficult to follow your post. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you click on the templates above to get a glance of the variables discussed? PPEMES (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose these templates have different purposes and it is unclear how a merged template will look like or act to reduce complexity or enhance the reading or editing experience. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2020 (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).

Template:Infobox roadside station[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).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Infobox motorway services. No prejudice against a discussion to rename. Redirects to this template are also a possibility. Primefac (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused in any articles, and appears to be a fork of Template:Infobox motorway services. Any needed missing features can be added there. No need to start a new infobox. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: If this is deleted, the two templates should be merged to something more generally named since the word motorway isn't used outside of the Commonwealth of Nations, perhaps "Template:Infobox service area" or "Template:Infobox rest area". The main issues I have with the British infobox is that it only has a parameter for British counties and there is no option to add in local names. Mccunicano☕️ 02:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into a new combined international template at {{Infobox service area}}. A combined template could easily handle having both, and could be adapted for other countries as needed. SounderBruce 04:54, 8 April 2020 (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).

Module:PakistanSuperLeagueProgression[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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 April 15. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:50, 15 April 2020 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_7&oldid=951627227"