Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 2

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 1 August 3 >

August 2 edit

Template:Legal recognition of polygamy 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 links into Template:Polygamous marriage. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Legal recognition of polygamy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete after merging necessary info into Legal status of polygamy. It is a template that is masquerading as an article. It is too long. Note that there is a Template:Polygamous marriage. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm neutral on deletion for now, but "masquerading as an article" isn't quite right. Compare to {{same-sex unions}}. --BDD (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose so, but where do we draw the line between a template and a [List of XXXX topics]? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:28, 2 August 2013 (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 former Arab villages in Palestine 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, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}. 425 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This template used in a considerable number of articles and has subject-specific fields that are not provided by Infobox Settlement. Zerotalk 01:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which? Mackensen (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fields "district", "date", "cause" and "curloc1" have special meaning in the template that is not replicated in Infobox Settlement. Zerotalk 06:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • district is easily replaced with subdivision_type and subdivision_name; date maps to extinct_date; the remainder are surely better discussed in the text of the article? Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • The cause should indeed be given in the article but this argument is true for any field in any infobox. The purpose of an infobox is to gather the pertinent fields related to a topic and also for comparison purposes. In the current case, the fact these villages were depopulated, when precisely and the cause of the depopulation is the key information. (See below) Pluto2012 (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per my comment above. A spot-check of articles using this infobox showed when the reasons for depopulation and the new settlement were in the infobox (and sometimes those fields are blank) they were also discussed in the lede. Not everything needs to be in the infobox. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The long term consensus of those who have worked on those articles is that those fields belong in the box. There is more involved here than what template is used; for example the restricted values of the "cause" field are designed to prevent edit wars. So far I don't see here any reason proposed for making a change other than a claim that a change is possible. What would be gained? Who would do all the work? I'll also note that so far I'm the only person active in that field who has noticed the proposal; a consensus of concerned persons should be sought. Zerotalk 06:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who will do all the work? Not you. We have plenty of volunteers who will see to what what needs to be done; and are experienced at doing so. The change is needed to minimise the template maintenance overhead. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The topic of the former Arab villages in Palestine that were depopulated during the 1948 and 1967 wars is well known and heavilty documented in academic litterature. The 1948 Palestinian exodus but also the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus are notorious academic topics. Several studies are specifically dedicated to the topic. Eg, following 4 books and article (all academic) contain and discuss the list of these villages and the cause(s) of the depopulation :
    * Walid Khalidi, All that remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948, Institute for Palestinian Studies, 1992 ;
    * Norman Finkelstein, Myths, Old and New, Journal of Palestine Studies, 1991 ;
    * Benny Morris, The Birth the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Cambridge University Press, 2004 (This one being commented and discussed in more than a hundred other academic publications);
    * Rosemarie Esber, Under the Cover of War, publication of a PhD Thesis, 2009).
    -> The specificity of an infobox for this topic is justified by its notoriaty ; the cause of the depopulation is a pertinent, not to say the most important, information as shown by the academic litterature on this specific topic Pluto2012 (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - its not redundant, and the argument that the parts of it that are distinctive shouldnt be in an infobox is not exactly persuasive. The cause of depopulation, to me, obviously belongs in the infobox, as does curloc1. nableezy - 18:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this infobox is used on a group of articles about villages which were depopulated at a certain period. Why, and when they were depopulated has been one of the most hotly contested areas in Israeli/Palestine history, and, (as Pluto2012 points out), a well of academic sources is the result. The infobox address this by having "date", "cause" and "curloc1", where we can give direct link to the relevant academic sources. (That some of the fields have not yet been filled is mostly due to the fact that one editor started the articles as stubs, and we have not yet managed to update them). Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal In view if the comments made above, about the particular circumstances of these villages, I suggest putting the relevant parameters into a module (sub-template) of {{Infobox settlement}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Why? What would be the advantage of that? Why change a template which all of us who work on these articles are ok with? (And which has evolved after lots of discussions..) I would assume there were other, more urgent problems to be solved on en.wp? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My view was that it would encapsulate and preserve the unique parts that have been carefully developed, while standardizing the rest -PC-XT+ 05:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you are correct, but it doesn't answer Huldra's question. Why would standardization justify the very large amount of work required to edit over 400 articles? We would much prefer to spend our time improving the article content. Zerotalk 09:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many editors, including myself, to some degree, are opposed to standardizing such clearly customized templates. Many other editors support it to a great extent, though, and would probably prefer to do such edits. I'd like to find something in between. I'm editing my vote, below, to include refactoring into a wrapper, which would be a way to avoid editing the articles, if desired. I'm also including a keep option, though there would be benefits to standardizing parts of the template. -PC-XT+ 05:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, someone who wants to do the edits would edit the articles for you, if that is consensus. You would not need to interrupt your improvements on articles more than to learn how to maintain the new template structure. I don't like asking the helpful people who close these discussions to do too much, but 500 edits is not unheard of with bots. If it is too hard to implement a change, it simply will not be done. -PC-XT+ 06:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Modularize per Pigsonthewing or Refactor to wrapper or both or Weak keep -PC-XT+ 05:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC) -PC-XT+ 03:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the longstanding version. What matters is the redactional content, that has been obtained by a long lasting process. Accuracy is what we, the writers, are committed to ensure to our readers. Palestine is not Korea, that is not China, that is not... (see the other discussions). It seems that some "template maniacs" have problem with diversity and with the fact that increasing the workload of a community is rarely welcome. That's life nevertheless. Pldx1 (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Closing admin could take a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Proposed_decision, for some general rules. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2013 (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 Midland College 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) 00:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Midland College (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox college}}. Single use, hard-coded. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 2 August 2013 (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 Taupo District 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) 04:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Taupo District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}; only 3 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 2 August 2013 (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:Roller Guns 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) 00:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roller Guns (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Misguided template per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roller gun. Only the first article included, Fokker-Leimberger is notable and properly belonging in this. We could add Mk 18 Mod 0 grenade launcher, but that's only two articles. I'm not counting the Johnston and Hodges which are properly typed but are just patents (one was deleted, the other looks like will have the same fate.) The last two links (for the Soviet machine guns) are wrong, as those don't use the "nutcracker" split-breech. So we'd have only two valid links left in this navbox, which falls short of WP:NENAN. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, no stand-alone parent topic article. Frietjes (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no parent article to tell what a "roller gun" is, so no possibility to determine if a link is correct or not. The Banner talk 01:31, 7 August 2013 (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:Plants in Gibraltar Botanic Gardens 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) 00:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Plants in Gibraltar Botanic Gardens (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unwieldy template that duplicates List of plants in the Gibraltar Botanic Gardens. BDD (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as unused, and clearly should not be used, since we wouldn't want to put this at the foot of every article linked in the box. Frietjes (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2013 (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.

Infobox language sub-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 delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox language/Indic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox language/signnotice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox language/nonotice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These are not used anymore. db-t3 was rejected because 'superseded or obsolete template components are useful for page histories'. {{Infobox language/IPA notice}} has already been deleted by a different admin. — Lfdder (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2013 (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 Country at the Central American and Caribbean Games 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) 21:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Country at the Central American and Caribbean Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox country at games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Country at the Central American and Caribbean Games with Template:Infobox country at games.
Merge into as a generic template.See example conversion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge, other tpl seems to work well enough. — Lfdder (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2013 (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:Banky W 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) 00:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Banky W (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Links to 4 relevant articles, including the banner article. Deadbeef 07:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough relevant links as the usual threshold is five (5) relevant links, not counting the backlink or "related". Especially because the first song does not have an own article, but links to an article section. So, just two relevant links. The Banner talk 01:09, 7 August 2013 (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 vice-regal 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) 04:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox vice-regal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox political post}}. Only 41 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is part of a series and works with Template:Infobox Monarchy and Template:Infobox minister office; these are all colour coded to signify a monarchy (and if a federal one), a viceregal post (and if is a federal, provincial, or state one), and a ministry (and if a federal, provincial, or state one). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The monarchy infobox is already up for deletion. The colours on this infobox were just removed (and after reversion are now being discussed on the talk page) for being inaccessible at even the most basic level, per WP:COLOUR. There is no need to colour-code infoboxes between articles; not least when there is no key and no documentation (how are readers and editors supposed to divine the meaning?) and no colour-coding on other biographical infoboxes that might be used for related people; even if there were, we don't need separate infoboxes to do it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The monarchy infobox is not up for deletion; there's a proposed merger between it and Template:Infobox former monarchy.
The infoboxes are for offices, not people.
The colour coding is indeed under discussion. That doesn't mean the discussion is finished and concluded in your favour. Intents will be explained there and possibly changes will be proposed and agreed upon. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of which negates the fact that, even if we keep the colours, we don't need separate infoboxes to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then, you're suggesting a merge of some sort...? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least tentatively, until there is a good legitimate reason to delete this template. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If possible, could a single template be used rather than several? It's difficult keeping up with which template to use, and I'm sure someone clever enough could come up with a fix with one template but for multiple categories of office holders or the like. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:00, 2 August 2013 (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 ministerial office 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) 04:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox ministerial office (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox political post}}; only 91 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • See above and keep --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not quite understand why the conservation of this infobox is so important. After scanning the articles of various political officials in various countries, it looks like articles on Canadian and Australian government officials are the only ones where this template is used. Even within Canadian and Australian government posts, there is inconsistency with its use. For example, while the article on the Australian prime minister does indeed use this ministerial infobox, it looks like the cabinet members do not; instead their pages use the standard political infobox. I can also see that this infobox template is used in monarchy-related pages (or similar versions) such as articles about the Queen of Canada and the Governor General of Canada. Other than that, however, it seems like every other article about any world or regional leader, whether it be a political post, business post, or international post, uses the standard Template:Infobox Political post. Furthermore, while I understand the argument that the colour-coordination makes it easier to differentiate between the federal governments and the state/provincial governments, I do not think it is really that necessary. For example, there is no such differentiation between the U.S. federal government and the state governments. The title is stated in the infobox and the introduction to the article explains the jurisdiction (federal or state). I do not understand why the same cannot be applied to Canadian and Australian government officials. The limited use of the ministerial infobox, along with the unnecessary components, like colour-coordination, and of course the contrast issues mentioned above, begs the question of why this infobox is so important to keep. Deleting this infobox on the few articles that use it and replacing it with the widely-used standard political post would have no impact on the understanding of readers who look at these articles. The only result of this change would be that it would make Wikipedia more unified, as all political posts would use one template. Nations United (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox ministerial office is not used for monarchs and viceroys. There are specific infobox templates for each of those (Template:Infobox monarchy and Template:Infobox vice-regal, the former used on every article about a country's monarchy and the latter used at least for every viceregal post in Canada and Australia) which work together with the ministerial office template.
If there's any inconsistency among Australian ministers' articles, the solution is to change the template to Infobox ministerial office, not delete the template.
The contrast issues have been resolved. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The have not; as explained to you on the template's talk page. (More precisely, they were resolved, but you reverted and then imposed your own solution, which still does not meet WCAG 2.0 guidelines at AAA level, which could easily be achieved). Regardless, the template is redundant whatever the colours. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The WP guideline calls for a minimum of AA, not AAA. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The key word being "minimum". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The key being the non-existence of any requirement to meet AAA, which you keep insisting must be met before the templates are useable. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Miesianiacal, of course we could simply change the rest of the Australian government templates to Infobox ministerial office, but that does not solve the main problem with this template: it is hardly ever used. I never proposed that we should delete this template simply because of the lack of uniformity within the two countries (Australia and Canada) that use it. I used that example to back up my claim that this template is used so limitedly that even within the only two countries that use it, there is inconsistency. Looking at the whole picture, one can see how this infobox template creates a lack of uniformity across Wikipedia. The infoboxes of every other world or regional leader use the standard Template:Infobox Political post. Examples include:
  • All U.S. government posts (President, Cabinet, Judicial officials, etc.)
  • Presidents, Prime Ministers, Chancellors, or any other title for world leaders of any country in the world and their cabinets (Prime Ministers of the UK, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, France, Spain, South Korea; Presidents of Russia, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, Germany, etc.)
  • Judicial posts of various countries, including for some reason Canada, which again shows inconsistency within the only two countries that use this template.
  • Then there are the leaders of international organizations like the Secretary-General of the United Nations, President of the World Bank and the Director of the IMF.
  • Also, the leaders of various banking institutions like the Bank of England and the U.S. Federal Reserve use the standard template.
So once again, I do not understand why the preservation of this ministerial template is necessary, considering it is only serving as the political post of two countries. Why does Canada and Australia need this special template that looks outdated, has unnecessary components that cause contrast issues, and most importantly reduces the uniformity of Wikipedia? Nations United (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought I was clear before. The proposal to delete this template and Template:Infobox vice-regal is a proposal to eliminate a system; these templates work together and with Template:Infobox monarchy; all are colour coded to differentiate between monarchical, viceregal, and ministerial posts and whether or not those are federal or provincial or state. (International organisations, banks, etc. are not relevant.) Deleting this template and the one for viceregal posts will leave the monarchy one alone and its colour coding left useless, rendering the whole system defunct.
If I recall correctly, there was an idea floated somewhere sometime back about merging templates, which I'm open to. But I do not favour deleting any of the three aforementioned for the reasons stated. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This template system does not have to be unified across monarchical, viceregal, and ministerial posts, as demonstrated in the UK and New Zealand articles. The article on the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom uses the standard Template:Infobox Political post, while the page on the Monarchy of the United Kingdom uses Template:Infobox monarchy; the same goes for the respective New Zealand articles. Does that mean the whole system is, as you say "defunct", for UK and New Zealand articles? While I am not a big fan of the monarchy and vice-regal templates, my main opposition is to the use of this ministerial template for only two world leaders, while the rest use the standard political infobox template. If the ministerial infobox is removed while the monarchy and vice-regal infoboxes remain, Canadian and Australian articles would be in the same position as UK and New Zealand articles. Most importantly, however, the articles on the leaders of these two countries, along with their regional counterparts, would use the same template as every other political post on Wikipedia. Nations United (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ministerial infobox is used on more than two articles.
Of course the templates don't have to follow a system. But, they can; and it's better that they do; consistency and order are better than the opposite. As it stands, the three-template system is complete and offers editors the choice to use it to its fullest (NZ and UK articles on ministers could be brought in line with Canada and Australia); deleting two of the three removes that choice and the system is no more. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing three templates with one would harm consistency and order how? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What one? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, Andy.
And Miesianiacal, there are three main problems with your comments:
  • 1. I never said the ministerial infobox applied to only two articles, you know that. I said that every article about the post of a world leader uses the standard political infobox template, except Canada and Australia. I specifically mentioned how replacing the ministerial templates with Template:Infobox Political post would change the articles on the leaders of Canada and Australia and their regional counterparts (i.e. premiers of the provinces and states).
  • 2. How you can claim that the current system brings consistency is beyond me; this outdated system only brings consistency for two countries. I'm sure you are aware, considering I've brought it up in every comment, that there are dozens of political articles of other countries across Wikipedia, all of which use the standard Template:Infobox Political post. I ask this question again, why do Canadian and Australian articles need a special template that is used nowhere else?
  • 3. Your suggestion that we should change UK and New Zealand articles to bring them in line with Canadian and Australian articles really does make me wonder why you are so attached to this template. Are you honestly proposing that instead of implementing the simple fix of changing the few articles that use this ministerial template to the standard political post template, we should instead discuss, (and if we are successful in persuading the UK and NZ editors), change all their many political posts to this ministerial template? And then on top of that, as you mentioned earlier, you want to change the Canadian and Australian articles that already use the standard political template to this outdated ministerial template?
Mies, it looks like you're a veteran editor, so I'm sure you can see that what you are proposing would be absurdly time-consuming and unnecessary. If we change Canadian and Australian articles to the template Andy and I prefer, we would be changing a small handful of articles mainly confined to Canadian ones, as many Australian government templates already use Template:Infobox Political post. This change would bring Canadian and Australian articles in line with every other political infobox on Wikipedia. Your solution would be to change the current Canadian and Australian articles that do not use this ministerial template so that they do, then go to the UK and NZ editors, get a consensus to change, and then proceed to change the many many government posts (especially UK government posts) so that they fit with your beloved ministerial template. What would we have after all that work? We would then have four countries that are inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia.
I don't know if you're being stubborn or if you really are THIS passionate about preserving the ministerial template at all costs, but please, I urge you to review the argument you're making, and think about the logical and practical solution to this issue. Why are you putting up such a fight over an issue that really should be very simple to resolve? Nations United (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You said the ministerial template is used on articles for only two world leaders. That is not correct.
I didn't make any suggestions as to what should be done on articles; that's not what this discussion is about. I said what could be done so long as neither of the two templates are deleted. If they are deleted, the system that currently comprises three templates will be destroyed; Template:Infobox monarchy will be left with no other infoboxes with the corresponding federal/provincial/state information/coding. And the end result will not be the consistency you desire so much; one template used for monarchical offices (that doesn't work with) another different one for ministerial offices, and... none for viceregal offices, as they aren't political posts.
In regard to your personal question about my possibly being stubborn and illogical, I want to remind you that I've at least once already made clear that I'm open to exploring ways to achieve a system of interrelated infoboxes that are used in all articles; I said the idea of a merge had been brought up by someone, somewhere, some time ago, and I wasn't immediately opposed to it. Template:Infobox political post modified by the importation of elements from Template:Infobox ministerial office could even be the template that drives the appearance of Template:Infobox monarchy and Template:Infobox vice-regal. That would achieve consistency. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mies, I'm sure you knew what I meant, but I'll clarify it for you even further: Of the many political articles of world leaders (eg. prime ministers, presidents, chancellors, etc. NOT provincial/state premiers who are not world leaders, but regional leaders in a country), there are only two that use the ministerial template: the Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime Minister of Australia. If you can point out another article on a world leader or leader of a nation that uses this ministerial template, please do so. Otherwise, there was nothing incorrect with that I said.

As for your comments about the "destruction" of this three-piece template system if the ministerial template is removed (which seems to work fine for UK and New Zealand articles), I've already said that I do not agree with your argument, as I think the consistency of political posts across the whole of Wikipedia is more important than consistency within two countries. Nevertheless, I can see you're putting your foot down on this issue, so I'm not going to waste any more time trying to convince you. When you first suggested a possible merger of the two templates, I was reluctant to agree to it because I knew that any such undertaking was going to involve a tremendously long process filled with discussion, debate, and argument. Therefore, I thought the quickest way of dealing with the matter would be to try to convince you to agree to the deletion of this template. Now, as I see you cannot be persuaded, I will agree to your proposition. Mies, I hope you are willing to compromise because you should know that you will most likely not get everything you want (colour-coding for example). Can I get an assurance from you that you will compromise if other editors do not like your ideas?

Well, if you're up to the challenge, then so am I. Are we going to work together on this? Nations United (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ministerial infobox is used on every article on a Canadian minister, as well as at Prime Minister of Jamaica. Perhaps you just don't consider any of them to be "world leaders". Besides those, it's also used in fair number of other articles.
I said there's a three template system currently in existence and if one or two are deleted, the system no longer works; I don't know what's so hard to grasp about that. In the scope of NZ and UK articles, the system currently isn't being used to its full extent, therefore not working in that context as its designed to do. But, it remains possible that it could be brought to do so, something that will be utterly impossible should either of the two templates Andy/Pigontheswing wants delted be deleted.
You say you want consistency. I do, too. The only thing we both seem to be putting our feet down on, in opposition, is the extent of the scope that consistency should be applied to. You're focused solely on all articles about political posts. I'm taking in articles on monarchical and viceregal posts, as well; considering all articles about governmental posts. So, as I see it, consistency won't be achieved by deleting the ministerial infobox or the vicegal post infobox or both; the inconsistency you see now among articles on UK and NZ governmental offices will not only remain but also extend on to the collection of articles on Canadian governmental offices and spread wider among articles on Australian governmental offices (remember the ministerial template is used on articles about state ministers as well).
What other solution is there to that than to propose a merger of elements of Template:Infobox ministerial office into Template:Infobox political post and, if done, adjust the other two templates to match it? That will no doubt instigate discussion. I don't know, though, how much. I'd think that the first thing to ask is if the federal/provincial/state designations in the former should be added to the latter. If the agreement is against doing so, then... Well, I guess, then we see if the ministerial office template should go, and, if its decided it should, then if the viceregal and monarchical ones should just be changed to have an identical appearance to the political post template. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concede that you have found one other article on a world leader that uses this template. And I was aware that articles on Canadian cabinet ministers, among others, do use this template, but as you said, I do not consider them world leaders.
Mies, I understood your argument; I just didn't agree with the importance of it. It's just a difference of opinion on what would be considered "not working". However, I do agree that the best solution would be to have one unified political template, which can then be used to change the other two. I think that's a terrific plan, but I'm skeptical that we will be able to get a consensus to carry it out. I also agree with your secondary plan, as it shows willingness on your part to compromise if all else fails. Thank you.
So, I'm assuming your comments indicate that you are ready to work together on this. As you are the more experienced editor, may I ask you to start up the discussion on whatever page is most appropriate? Nations United (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Infobox political post is a better template. 117Avenue (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - stop deleting the hard work of our wikiprojects. No valid content or editor related reason for deletion - not violating any policy or guide. Simply bureaucratic meddling resulting in wikiproject interruptions and discourse. Best editors work on real problems over making them for others -- Moxy (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2013 (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:Geography of Sikar district 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) 04:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geography of Sikar district (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Presented content in the above map, does not fit, with the actual source from where it is copied. They are heavily modified in order to pursue own interest. No source or reference provided. Chu86happychu 12:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Question Can you prove that claim of "to pursue own interest"? The Banner talk 23:05, 5 August 2013 (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:Georgian alphabet 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) 00:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Georgian alphabet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation templates aren't for inter-wiki navigation. Suggest deleting. — Lfdder (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question. Just to be sure I (and others) understand the issue here, are you saying that this template is inappropriate because all the links are to the individual letters' articles in Wiktionary (instead of Wikipedia links)? If that is what you mean, then I wonder if this concern should apply even to a template (like this one) that is used in many articles. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why does that matter? And 6 is many? — Lfdder (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was in at least a dozen articles when I made my comment above. I think the issue may be complicated (and possibly even circular); see my further comments below. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, navboxes are (primarily) for navigating within one Wikipedia, not for sending you to another wikiproject. and, it is orphaned, so it's not clear where it would be used or was previously used. Frietjes (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. FWIW, the template was being used in at least a dozen articles about 12 hours ago (when I asked my question above), but it was subsequently removed from those articles. I see several issues here — is/was the template genuinely helpful in the 12+ articles where it used to be before being recently removed? — was the template being overused, added indiscriminately to articles only very tenuously related to the Georgian alphabet? — and is the policy or guideline involved here sufficiently compelling that the template really must be removed no matter how useful it might appear to be? BTW, just so I'm understanding clearly, is the objection to this template based in the statements in WP:NAVBOX (part of the WP:CLNT guideline) that navigation templates should contain "links to a group of related articles" (i.e., Wikipedia articles), and/or that "external links should not be included in navigation templates" (and if so, it's not totally clear to me that interwiki links must always fall into this category; see point #5 at WP:ELMAYBE)? Or is there some other fundamental basis for objecting to this template regardless of its possible usefulness? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{Georgian language}} contains the alphabet, so this template is a duplicate to begin with. — Lfdder (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given that this material already exists in {{Georgian language}} (sorry I missed this fact earlier), I agree that a separate "Georgian alphabet" template is unnecessary and should be deleted. Addition of {{Georgian language}} should presumably be considered, on a case-by-case basis, for articles which formerly had {{Georgian alphabet}} — though I imagine some of these articles already have the "language" template, and it might not necessarily be appropriate for some articles that used to have the "alphabet" template. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:30, 3 August 2013 (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/2013_August_2&oldid=1079419268"