Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 17

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 16 March 18 >

March 17 edit


Template:New Religious Movements, Cults, and Sects edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Template:New Religious Movements (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are several issues with the template. The templates content appairs to break with WP:NPOV, and it is also most likely violating guidelines like WP:NAVBOX (all the four listed through the heading, and under Disadvantages of a template no. 3 and 8) . The template does not separate NRM, cults and sects, and mix up a random collection of NRM, cults and sects in the space named "Major Groups". The mix makes it likely to connect groups (I am most familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses, LdS (removed), adventists (removed) and a few other, but the issue is likely to regard other major groups like Falun Gong) that do have noone or few only connections with possible offensive terms like sect and cult. Some of the groups named are not major at all, but known for mass suicide. Most of the issues are mentioned in the talk page, but the definitions used seems to be biased and random, and as I see it, the template need major changes, changed name included, to be accurate and representing a neutral point of view. Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

editing of this template has been locked since 7th March. Discussion regrading its future is ongoing. Best raise your objections there rather than start a new discussion here. Semitransgenic talk. 12:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My conserns about the template would not be solved by minor changes within the template. At least a few of the users at the templates talkpage have indicated that the template should be proposed for deletion, and, because of the reasons given above, I do not disagree to them. I can not see any consensus pulling the template out of the above mentioned issues is about to be reached. Grrahnbahr (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but take out the "cult" stuff. The topic of New religious movement is notable and a template would be helpful to people wanting to learn more. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it used to be two separate templates, one for NRM and one for Cults (or similar). Grrahnbahr (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination, there is no sufficient RS that list or combine all of the items used for navigation, thus creating a confusion and unnecessary edit conflicts. Wikidas© 07:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stated above discussion regarding the template's configuration has been ongoing since 7th of March, it has been locked since that time. Semitransgenic talk. 19:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can not see how keeping the template locked or the ongoing discussion could meet the issues raised. Constructive suggestions from some of the participating users is rejected, as one or a few of the template editors don't seem to be willing to loose the grasp on a template with none or weak guidelines for inclusion. Even though some of the suggestions would have been approved, it is still likely the template would break with policies and guidelines, as the template seems to be far from those mentioned above as it stands today. The ongiong discussion is tending to be about keeping the weak guidelines for inclusion rather than making major changes, like User:Semitransgenic stated: "I still think we need some way of presenting a subject space overview, using a template, that addresses church-sect typology as it relates to definitions of NRMs,cults, and sects." (from the templates talkpage), or as I read it, «I think we need some other way to define the template, so we could keep it like it is using random, NPOV-breaking definitions».Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Grrahnbahr, excuse me, but your WP:AOBF interpretation of my comment above demonstrates your ignorance of the subject matter. I see a group of editors actively involved in consensus building on the article's talk page, and I also see that you have contributed nothing to this process. Are you sure you are the best person to be offering an opinion on the deletion of this article? Semitransgenic talk. 16:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see it wasted to make contributions to a template that apparently is breaking guidelines and policies in such a degree, and may even by existence. It is also no need to be contributing in spesific articles, or templates, to be nominating for deletion, as the process itself could be considerated as quality improvement of wikipedia (relax, I won't accuse you for WP:AOBF, not for this, and not for accusing me for "ignorance of the subject matter"). My comment was not ment as a personal attack or accuse for bad faith, but more as pointing out the ongoing discussion could not be used for a reason to keep the template, as it not likely will lead anywhere from where it stands now regarding breaking guidelines and policies. I see lack of will to do highly needed major changes as a reason for this, as the template needs major changes, like a split or a giant rollback, and clear definitions of what articles to include, to be significant closer to a NPOV condition. I think it would be fear for those who wants to keep it, to give up some good reasons why this template is not breaking the policies and guidelines mentioned above. As I see it, neither "locked article" or "ongoing discussion" is good reasons. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it's clear from the talk-page that the current configuration was arrived following a process of consensus building by interested parties and that objections have since been raised. If indeed there is an outstanding issue with guideline compliance, this can be altered via a renewed process of consensus building; and that is why discussion is currently taking place. The guidelines for deletion indicate that only if the template "violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance" should it be nominated. Since interested parties are discussing ways to alter the template the request to delete is unwarranted. -- Semitransgenic talk. 19:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline of deletion says "Reasons to delete a template: ... 4.The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility". The nomination is according the guideline, if any doubt. The question is rather if the template is violating the NPOV-policy or not. Even if the consensus says it does not, it could still be deleted if it is consensus to do so. If the nomination fails on the NPOV-isssue, it sure will be a question about breaking all the guidelines listed in the heading is a reasonable cause to delete the template anyway, or if the template could be improved according to the guidelines. Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly violates the NPOV as it stands. You are right Grrahnbahr. Wikidas© 22:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it's not a simple case of NPOV violation, the template does not explicitly indicate if a listed group is considered an NRM, cult, or sect, because there is an outstanding definitions problem, something that was in the past discussed on the template's talk page here, and something which has more recently been discussed here. If there is a group listed that is categorically not an NRM, cult, or sect, then it should of course be removed from the list of major groups. Semitransgenic talk. 09:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, and also per Wikidas' comments above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - New religious movements (and sects and cults) are notable issues. The template does not attempt to classify any particular group as a 'cult'. If the mere inclusion of the word cult being near [group xyz] is so offensive to members of group xyz (although Wikipedia is not censored), then rename template to remove the word cult. Given the debate at this template, it would probably be a waste of time attempting to have a template that only lists 'cults'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your are right about New religious movements (and sects and cults) are being notable issues, but I find it doubtly if "New Religious Movements, Cults, and Sects" is. The template content is random and biased, as a lot of the groups mentioned under Major Groups is not major at all. The Wikipedia is not censored is not relevant here, as the issue is not censorship, but reliability and a NPOV (to remove biased and NPOV-breaking content do not have anything to do with consorship, just like removing false or unverified statements not is censoring wikipedia). If it is a waste of time attempting to have the template listing cults only, then, sure deletion would be the only option for this template. Grrahnbahr (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ Grrahnbahr you keep asserting that some kind of "bias" exists, but you ignore the fact that the current configuration was arrived at so that an existing POV problem with the preceding "cult" template could be circumvented. It's clear from your statements that you feel certain groups listed are not described as an NRMs, cults, or sects, OR, they are not notable enough to be listed in the major groups category. Hardly grounds for deleting an entire template, especially as the items you object to could be removed. Semitransgenic talk. 13:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've already stated in the nomination why I think the template should be deleted, and also given an explanation why I still think the nomination is highly valid. I won't redraw the nomination in exchange for removing a group or adding a group, because it will not change the issued raised. This nomination is not about a single group, and the nomination seems to be supported by several experienced users. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your objections to the template are really about content. It is actually preferable that the template does not attempt to separate NRMs, cults and sects, otherwise there would be endless debate that "[group xyz] isn't a cult/sect" (usually from members of xyz). "Major" could be replaced with "notable". And WP:CENSOR is relevant here, because the primary objection to listing certain groups according to their academic classification is to avoid offending members of such groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, there's apparently no uniform definition of what should be included here; until that time, a template — which can only be "listing" and "soundbite-like" — is inappropriate. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To random and broad in subject. Agathoclea (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The terms "New Religious Movements, Cults and Sects" are not necessarily PoV and remain widely used in the Sociology of Religion field. Indeed, they appear in the titles of several major reference works and academic papers dealing with new religious movements, and by such scholars as James R. Lewis, David Bromley, Lorne Dawson, James Beckford, J. Gordon Melton, Geoffrey Nelson and other respected authors. Since academic sources produce solid reference works that include groups under the banner of "New Religious Movements, Cults and Sects", I see no reason to delete the template. Indeed, it could serve the same function (i.e., of tying together articles on these related groups) as does a table of contents in those works. • Astynax talk 23:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The template has a history of being promotional for the anti-cult movement. Even now The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (for example) with millions of members is given equal status with groups of a dozen or so who are noted for committing group suicide. And for that matter with minor anti-cult activist organizations. There does not seem to be any consensus on how to improve it, so deletion is probably the best thing. Articles can still be cross referenced through other means. BigJim707 (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any serious objection that they are not all new religious movements?--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is. Please give the precise definition of "new religious movement" — there is none, and that's the problem. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary for me to provide an exact definition in order to indicate that socioligists of religion broadly identify a particular group as an NRM (which is inclusive of, but not synonymous with cult or sect). If a particular group is not broadly recognised as an NRM (i.e. considered to be an NRM by few or no academics in the relevant field), it can be removed from the list.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. In order to group anything, one needs to know what comprises that group; otherwise, you will only need to find some random "expert" who said that so-and-so is such-and-such. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Removal of links related to the anti-cult movement is a content issue, not a reason to delete the template.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
arguably, the entire matter is a content issue. Judging from comments above, and those offered in discussion on the articles talk page, it appears the consensus is that we should change the title and trim the 'main groups' section, not delete the template. Semitransgenic talk. 14:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even so if it a matter of content, the lack of will, ability and/or possibility to do highly needed changes to keep the article according to the NPOV-policy − and six of the guidelines listed in WP:NAVBOX − justify a deletion of the template.
I've listed up the four guidelines given in the heading in WP:NAVBOX:
  • 1.All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
  • 2.The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
  • 3.The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
  • 4.There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
Noone of those who wants to keep the template, have even commented the NAVBOX-guidelines, so I'll help a little bit:
1:All articles do not relate to a single, coerent subject. Several editors here claims the template to be to broad or to random (if a templates subject is random without clear, academic definitions, the articles does not relate to a single, coherent subject). Some of the editors here claims the template is giving the impression to give and overview over sociological classifications, and User:Astynax is mentioning some authors to support the claim. The list of authors are mentioning sect, cults and NRM, but few, if any, of them or any RS, mentioning all in some context in a way it is likely to have build a subject. No subject=no cohorent subject. Even for each of several of the groups included in the major group section, it would be a neverending discussion whether the group belongs there, or is better mentioned as denomination or something else.
2:The templates subject is mentioned in just a few, if any, articles. You can say LdS is a religion, a denomination, and probably even claim it to be a NRM if just telling who's say so and reference it well, but could you say it is a "cult, sect and NRM", or state it classified as a "cult, sect, and NRM"? Try it.
3:The article do refering to each other in just the slightest amount. The articles are refering to "mainstream" religion, and "mainstream" Christian (but it is already a template covering this). The article about JW may refer to similarities or differences to LdS or adventists, but is it refering to some of the non-christian groups mentioned in the template, or any of the groups known for mass suicide?
4:There is no wikipediaarticle on the subject.
And one more thing, those who wants to keep the template, argue that a single group is covered by a part of the title (like asking if a group is NRM). If I didn't like Obama (Obama is ok, btw), and made a template named "Nazists, Communists and Black presidents", and put Stalin, Hitler and Obama there, and a few other politicians I didn't like, and even some other again, who wasn't much popular, claiming to make an overview for Worlds politics, would it be OK? If somebody wants to remove Obama, I could say, we don't do sencoring here, if Obama is connected to politics, just like Stalin, so be it. And, isn't he a Black precident? It is probably some authors too, who have been writning about communists and capitalists, so finding a connection should't be to hard. I wouldn't make such a template, would you? Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the topic 'NRMs, cults, and sects,' is a coherent subject. The will to change it does indeed exist but like i said at the top, the page is locked and has been since the 7th of March, this entire call to delete is moot, because the opportunity to change the template, so that it does conform to required standards, was unavailable to interested parties. Semitransgenic talk. 17:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you are going to build an article on an term mentioned once in a course description, for a syllabus (yes, it's only mentioned once, on the frontpage, without any kind of context)? Looks like the best out of a google-search for me. It is a good try, but I can't see much of my conserns regarding the template violiting the guidelines listed in WP:NAVBOX is met, but I'm the nominator, so would be up to other editors to decide. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
there are many texts with mixed titles offered by academic publishers, such as: “Cults, Sects and New Religions” (Barker 2002), “The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions” (Lewis 1998), “Cults and New Religions: A Brief History” (Bromley 2008), “Cults and new religious movements: a reader” (Dawson 2006), “Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in American History” (Jenkins 2000), Semitransgenic talk. 19:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There seemed to be a fairly good consensus to move the template to Template:New Religious Movements, a solution proposed by Steve Dufour I think. I'd like to see if the move solves the problems before deleting, but don't have especially strong feelings either way on the issue. (The lock is expiring in 3 days, by the way.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename to Template:New Religious Movements. That is the most inclusive term. Also keep some of the "cult" material. BTW there is very little on sects. Borock (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a virtually random mix. Four consecutive examples: George Fox, Jim Jones, L. Ron Hubbard, and Li Honghxi. These are related in only the most tenuous possible way. Simply put, I can't imagine anyone actually using this for navigation, so it defeats the purpose of a navbox. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
four consecutive examples: all leaders/founders of new religious movements. Hardly a tenuous relationship. Semitransgenic talk. 08:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response They're from four centuries of history. One (co-)founded a British Christian reform movement, one was a cult leader, one created a money-making para-religious scheme, and one is an expositor of ancient Chinese medical and philosophical practices. They are not related. I don't know how Quakerism constitutes a new religious movement in 2012... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
that's a bit like saying Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and Guru Nanak Dev are not related. Have you looked at the category founders of religions lately? little difference. They all had to start somewhere, but some had more success than others, even Christianty could once have been called a "cult." Semitransgenic talk. 13:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right And you'll notice that there isn't a navbox linking those four... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and rename it Template:New Religious Movements (the terms Cult and Sect have negative connotations and are not NPOV). This is an important topic for an encyclopedia to cover, and this template aids in navigation. It should include both new religious movements that are considered fairly mainstream (such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.) as well as ones that people often call "cults" (such as Scientology, Raelianism, the Church of the SubGenius, Heaven's Gate, the LaVeyan Church of Satan, the Branch Davidians, Discordianism, Jim Jones's cult, etc.) Not all new religious movements are the same; there is a lot of diversity and just because a cult that committed group suicide appears next to a well-respected new religious movement there should not be a problem. This only serves to highlight the vast diversity among new religious movements and how different they are from each other, how each one of them is unique and different. Creating different categories for cults and for well-respected new religious movements would be NPOV; they have to be treated equally because the "cult" status of many new religious movements is highly debatable. Of course, anything that has been around since the 1700s or earlier is not "new", so, for instance, Quakerism doesn't belong as it is a Christian denomination founded in the 1600s. It should only include religious movements (or "sects" or "cults") from the 1800s and newer. --Yetisyny (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a good explanation for why you want to keep the article. A few issues are not yet mentioned, I hope you could be able to provide suggestions: What is your point of view of all the cult-related articles (like Anti-cult movement and Cult suicide) mentioned in the template? And what about the section named "Major groups", not containing major groups only? And how to "limit the field", as probably approx. thousands of groups could be concidered as NRM? Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox megalith 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 merge with {{Infobox archaeological site}} and/or {{Infobox ancient site}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{Infobox archaeological site}}. Has mostly location -related parameters, not specific to megaliths. Only 31 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: But somebody will have to edit the 31 transclusions. Some of the parameters are different (eg, |Photo=), so a simple replacement or redirection will not do. HairyWombat 02:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support At least some of the pages that use this infobox also include additional parameters that aren't displayed in the box. The infobox also includes fields that are specific to British locales, which isn't useful for such sites in other nations. As mentioned, there are a couple of other boxes that could be used instead (such as {{Infobox ancient site}} or {{Infobox archaeological site}}, depending on the article). I've tried manually converting a few, and it doesn't appear to be a big job. I'll try doing more later, and refer here in the edit summaries. • Astynax talk 20:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Legislature Historic 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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{Infobox legislature}} (to which a |date_disbanded= could be added, or |status=, allowing for a value of "historic" or, say, "defunct", Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—redundant per easily implemented suggestions. Imzadi 1979 → 21:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - again, not redundant. It has redundancies, it has overlap, but not redundant, which again you show by mentioning the fields that do not exists in the other template. That is, if you have to add fields, then a template is not redundant. For an example of how words like redundant/redundancies actually have important differences between the base word, here is an example: George W. Bush and Barack Obama have some similarities (male, humans, Americans, US Presidents, went to college, graduated college, married, held state elective office, have post graduate degrees from Harvard, have two daughters, etc.) but few would consider them similar. Please understand the difference between redundancies and redundant, then continue to nominate, but perhaps nominate for a merger, as technically, redundant is improper unless they are actually redundant. Otherwise, I doubt anyone would care if these are merged, but these are the fields that need to be transferred: "year", "before", "after", and "year2". Aboutmovies (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikitionary has a definition of "redundant", please take time to familiarise yourself with it. Also note that George W. Bush and Barack Obama were not president at the same time; that would be because a second president would have been (ta-da!) redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • And which one of those definitions? Perhaps this one: "Duplicating or able to duplicate the function of another component of a system". Again, the regular infobox (without any changes) cannot duplicate what this infobox does. It has to be modified to work for former legislative bodies. As to your president "arguement" (and I use that term loosely here), you are right; HAD they been, thus there are only similarities (the term I obviously was unsuccessful in using to educate you) between the two. To try and make it more clear for you, similar and similarities have subtle differences in their meanings, which I tried to explain above; likewise, redundant and redundancies have subtle differences in their meanings. All you need to do is to compare your Wiktionary entry for redundant compared to the Wiktionary entry for redundancy, where to quote the similar portion from redundant definition quote above: "Duplication of components or circuits to provide survival of the total system". Notice, very similar, but redundancy talks about only portions of the whole, whereas redundant talks about the total system. Otherwise those terms would be, (ta-da!) redundant. Aboutmovies (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. 65.92.181.184 (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 12:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox French winery edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox French winery (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox winery}} (Currently 18 transclusions to 172). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox gold mine edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox gold mine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox mine}}. (Currently 96 transclusions to 464) Suggested steps: add |ounces of gold= and related para(s) to the mine infobox; make the gold mines template a wrapper, subst all instances. Delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox amateur wrestler 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 do not merge, but rename the wrestler infobox. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox amateur wrestler (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox wrestler (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox amateur wrestler with Template:Infobox wrestler.
Redundancy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The two are as incongruous to each other as the actual "sports"; as the latter relies on billed heights/weights, debuts and what-not additions as a show business venture throughout a performer's career and the former on facts during a brief period so far as schools and championship merits are concerned. Even a happy medium is not likely feasible given the differences in production. Papacha (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Papacha. You don't get the said attributes in Amateur wrestling. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Real lack of understanding between the two here; they are nowhere near redundant. 24.129.38.231 (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I fail to see the redundancy in the two. One is 'real sport' and the other is 'show business'. I agree with the previous three folks that also said 'keep'. InFlamester20 (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Placing "Pro" wrestling in the same regard as Amateur wrestling would be a big disrespect to all amateur wrestlers. De132Wiki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep/No Merge": Infobox wrestler has several parameters that are needed for articles that amateur wrestler does not. Also to De132Wiki, this is not about respect, as several amateur wrestlers join the wrestling business. Take Kurt Angle as an example.--WillC 05:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Papacha has this one right. These are two separate concepts which both happen to involve men grappling with one another. The at-a-glance information relevant to each is different to that of the other, and there's insufficient transit from one to the other to warrant a merge. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a keep. In which case, {{Infobox wrestler}} should be renamed, more precisely - but to what? "Infobox pro wrestler" or "Infobox professional wrestler" perhaps? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox professional wrestler}} would match the associated article, so makes sense. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep two entirely different sports. Endorse renaming of Template:Infobox wrestler to Template:Infobox pro wrestler. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 02:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whoever proposed this merge obviously don't understand there's a major difference between a amateur wrestler and pro wrestler. 4urge (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as papacha mentioned this is not the same thing and as a name for the pro wrestling template i would suggest a add to pro wrestler like (sports entertainer) --Nakurio (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/rename Keep separate but rename Infobox wrestler to Infobox Pro-wrestler or Infobox professional wrestler.--Dcheagle 09:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep/strong rename "Wrestler" is a generic term in which is describes people who partakes in the combat sport of wrestling. So it makes sense to rename it. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 13:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Deity templates edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Alusi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Andean deity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Egyptian deity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Germanic deity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Greek deity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Hindu deity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Norse deity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant - Suggest merger at Infobox deity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep:
    • No Infobox deity exists as of now.
    • Each infobox has specific parameters and colours irrelevant to other infoboxes. Eg. In Infobox Hindu deity, the parameter mount relates to a vahana and links to it. The colour is a orange, the colour related to Hinduism. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and then Delete once a merger to create an "Infobox deity" is done. That merged template would use the correct colors as needed. ({{infobox road}} uses colors that are switched by country, and even type of roadway in various countries; that means that Hindu deities can use an orange color while others use the appropriate colors.) In short, the consistency gained and simplicity from consolidation will be a net benefit. As accessibility and MoS changes are needed, it's easier to update one template than seven, a net benefit. Imzadi 1979 → 21:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If somebody does the merger properly(no significant decrease in usability) and somebody (a bot probably) can replace the Infobox Hindu deity in the 200 odd articles where it is used, then it is OK to Merge and Delete. --Redtigerxyz Talk 02:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Relax, you're not going to lose functionality, this is about a better implementation and ease of maintenance. See the FAQ, below. Alarbus (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. In that case, I've struck through your earlier !vote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, this support to delete is conditional (the conditions in my above vote are met). A proposal to 1 infobox for all places of worship was dropped in the past, after the realization that the parameters/looks were very different. I have not gone through other templates. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Andy. See Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation for FAQ. Alarbus (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete: Don't delete the template. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 06:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    This not about deleting, it's about merging to a consolidated implementation. Alarbus (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep them as they are. I checked out the Norse template and it has things specific to that pantheon. I would expect the others to be the same. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Template parameters can be optional. We don't fork templates every time there's an optional parameter, when many parameters, and the general purpose, are the same. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge In case there are issues then revert.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 18:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Keep them the same. I agree with Kitfoxxe on how some things are only to one deity. Besides, merging it would make it harder to understand some stuff, and a lot more complicated. Also, the effort to put into changing it would be more than its worth since it is great as it is. Merging just wouldn't make sense. KittenVasaio (talk) 07:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation seems to be a project started by the nominator and Thumperward earlier this month, and has no weight as a general practice Wikipedia-wide. So looking at the merits of this proposed merge itself, I find it lacking. The apparent crusade of the nominator to merge infoboxes is not compelling, because granularity is not really a problem. The relevant information in these deities' infoboxes is disparate enough to warrant specific templates. 68.54.4.162 (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation is an essay, not a project, and no claims of special authority are being made. However, it was written in response to FAQs about the process of Infobox consolidation which has been ongoing for three years or more, and which has seen many redundant templates merged or deleted - indeed, five such templates are being removed as the result of discussions elsewhere on this page alone. Excessive granularity (as in this case) is a problem, as has been explained and demonstrated many times during that process. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment maybe if someone made an all-purpose Infobox deity first, and then showed that it had the full functionality of all the existing templates, people would be more willing to !vote "merge". As it is, I'm going to have to say keep separate because the hypothesis that all these infoboxes can be safely merged into one without losing anything remains untested. Angr (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and preserve all the features of the existing deity infobox templates using optional parameters. The merged template should be created first, fully tested, and shown to have full functionality before any of the existing templates are deleted. If this cannot be done, than Keep, as per Angr's comment. --Yetisyny (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in general, I think the merging would be a good idea. I would think that the replacement Template:Infobox Diety should be created first, before much further discussion. Maybe using as test cases, the merging of the Germanic and Norse templates? It looks like the Norse is the one in use (the what links here for Germanic is just the other Templates, and a couple other non-article links). But it looks like the Germanic has some information classes the Norse one doesn't. And does anyone find it interesting/odd that while the Greek deities have an infobox, the Roman ones don't? Roman just has generic template of {{Ancient Roman religion}} Compare Zeus to Jupiter (mythology)--VikÞor | Talk 11:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox WSH tournament edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox WSH tournament (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Singe use - subst, or replace with something more generic? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NECBL Infobox edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete after merging history with forked template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{Infobox baseball team}}; only 21 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Devised for one collegiate summer league in the Northeastern US, now used by a second league. Simpler than {{Infobox baseball team}}; would be a nuisance to convert, for little benefit. Spike-from-NH (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—redundant. As accessibility or MoS updated are needed, it's a lot easier to update one template than two. In other words, there isn't "little benefit" to a conversion/merger and rather substantial benefits in the long run to eliminating redundancy. Imzadi 1979 → 21:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Collegiate summer league teams (here, NECBL members) have some differences in information than do professional teams. This infobox also avoids the clutter of the uniform section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kithira (talk • contribs)
    • What differences? Why can a single template not accommodate these? We don't have separate templates just to present a subset of other templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I have converted one of these (Nashua Silver Knights) from the deprecated one to the preferred one. Wasn't too painful; capitalization of field names is inconsistent. Am pleased that the template didn't make me review old photographs to draw the home and away uniforms. You ought to edit {{Infobox baseball team}} to incorporate the fields that it omits, such as Website and cap artwork; also, radio or TV outlet. Spike-from-NH (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep or delete but certainly rename to match the {{Infobox xxxxx}} scheme. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appears to be have been nearly orphaned by now: the layout is plainly nonstandard and it seems that articles would benefit from just using the generic baseball team infobox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • history merge with Template:Collegiate baseball team. Frietjes (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:BeaconStreetGirls edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template is completely unnecessary, as none of the individual books have enough sources to show notability by themselves and were redirected to the main article of Beacon Street Girls. There's already a list of the books on the page itself (Beacon Street Girls), so there's absolutely no need for this template when it'll just end up redirecting to the main page and there's already a list of books on said page. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete That makes sense to me. If template adds nothing for reader why have it? Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A navbox full of redirects to the same article is not useful. -- Whpq (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Current 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is unnecessary, largely unwanted, and the "rules" surrounding it's use have turned into process wonkery. There appears to be general acceptance that it is "misnamed" as well, and it's scope and proper use have been in relatively constant flux for quite some time now. The vast majority of it's uses are not on article pages anyway (there are hundreds of transclusions on user pages and Wikipedia pages, for some reason). It seems to me to be a good time to just get rid of this thing. Having it added and then removed to articles seems fairly pointless, and as anyone who reads the talk page will tell you it's superfluous anyway when we consider Wikipedia:No disclaimers (and I won't even mention WP:NOTNEWS more than in passing)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't see it as a disclaimer, I see it as indicating you might encounter edit conflicts when editing. 70.24.251.224 (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The IP user makes a valid point. I tend to agree with him; but that's not to say that the template isn't overused. Jared Preston (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems like it gives useful information to someone visiting WP for info on a breaking news story. I don't see any real problems. When the interest dies down someone will remove it. If not still no harm is done.Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Tagremover (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Remove it from the non-mainspace pages. You cite WP:NDA in your support, but if you read the "few notable exceptions" of that page's introduction, you'll see that this template is specifically excepted. It's unambiguously helpful to be able to "alert the reader that the article content may be subject to significant changes in the near future for reasons beyond the control of Wikipedia." Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only reason this is there is not many tranclusions on articles the template is still useful, such as a natural event, any conflicts, current awards or elections this can be used for many things. JayJayTalk to me 00:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_17&oldid=1140746921"