Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 April 18

< April 17	April 19 >

April 18 edit

Template:Starbox 2 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 relisted on 2014 May 8 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:24, 8 May 2014 (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 University Boat Race 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) 03:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox University Boat Race (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We already have Template:Infobox boat race. eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. Newly created fork duplicating existing functionality -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep not duplicate functionality in anyway, shape or form. This relates to The Boat Race, not a generic boat race between countries. There are very specific Boat Race fields implemented in this info box, if someone is prepared to implement them all in the existing info box, then fine. Or else rename this info box Infobox The Boat Race to avoid this obvious confusion in the future. (I've moved it to Infobox University Boat Race to avoid this confusion). Did either of you even look at the functionality offered in either box? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the same reason we delete infoboxes for fictional characters from specific TV shows, because there's a generic character infobox. Hence why this should be deleted. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not at all, the other infobox doesn't offer the same functionality at all. The "generic info box" has completely different parameters. Hence why this should be kept. Please demonstrate how the existing infobox can be used to replicate the way in which this specific usage is required. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More people should read WP:IBX before creating templates. An infobox shouldn't be filled with as many parameters as you can think of. If there are parameters that can be useful for similar sporting events, add them to {{Infobox boat race}}; if not, odds are they shouldn't be in the infobox to begin with.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- More people should read the context for the use of info boxes, the generic boat race template (used on a handful of poor stubs) cannot be used for the head-to-head university boat race, where the parameters I've implemented aren't "as many as I can think of", but those which are relevant and directly reported in the press every single year for the last 180 or so years. This isn't a gold/silver/bronze race between a number of countries, it's completely different. On a related note, if you believe what you're writing, why would we have {{Infobox Super Bowl}}, {{Infobox Pro Bowl}} etc while in your argument {{Infobox NFL single game}} {{Infobox NFL championship game}} or similar would be perfectly adequate. Perhaps you're unaware of the fact that the Boat Race has had 160 editions, so this infobox will ultimately be used on that many articles. It is unlike 99% of other "boat races" so trying to manipulate the existing weak and seldom used infobox to match the requirements would be pushing a round peg through a square hole. In future, this University Boat Race infobox could be used on edition articles for Harvard–Yale Regatta, Scottish Boat Race, The Welsh Boat Race, Bristol Boat Race, Oxford and Cambridge Cup etc, with just a small amount of tinkering. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I suspected, a toothless and baseless nomination. Suggest this is quickly withdrawn to avoid further embarrassment for the nominator and the IP who clearly had no idea what this template was to be used for. You're both probably better off getting your kicks from nominating templates like {{Infobox Congressional caucus}} and {{Infobox tornado intercept vehicle}} and {{Infobox AFLChamp1960}} and {{Infobox AFL grand final2}} and {{Infobox Asia Series}} rather than pick on something that's actively being used multiple times. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the templates have different parameters because they are doing different jobs, so seeking speedy deletion as a fork of existing functionality is a completely wrong approach. Merging the two into one template makes no sense - for a start, anyone copying and pasting the ready-to-fill version of the merged template into a new article would then need to ignore / remove approximately half of the parameters because they would be completely irrelevant for that article. There are no gold/silver/bronze medal positions in the Boat Race (just Oxford first, Cambridge second), and no need to specify numbers of countries and numbers of boats participating, for instance. 2012 Vintage Yachting Games – Dragon, in return, doesn't need parameters for the winners of the reserve and women's races. Interesting to see how few articles in fact use this supposedly superior alternative template... Bencherlite ^Talk 06:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a useful template that serves a specific purpose, on what will hopefully come to be a large series of articles. Deleting it would be pointless as there is no need to have the minimum possible number of infoboxes. James^x12345 17:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User talk:Underlying lk, are we done here now? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - infobox serves a clear purpose, not duplicated by other templates. As James said "there is no need to have the minimum possible number of infoboxes" --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User talk:Underlying lk, are we done here now? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2014 (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:Palestine (historic region) topics 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) 04:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Palestine (historic region) topics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Palestine topics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Palestine (historic region) topics into Template:Palestine topics.
Following community consensus from March 2014 to name Palestinian entity topics template as "Palestine topics", i propose merger of Template:Palestine (historic region) topics. Obviously, at current form "Palestine topics" (instead of PNA) and "Palestine (historic region)" essentially overlap. To strengthen my point, there is no other example when we have two templates - one for political entity and another for region with other current countries (and it doesn't matter if Palestine is fully sovereign country or unrecognized one). That said we don't have template:Transjordan (region) topics, no template:Land of Israel topics and not template:Syria (region) topics, Palestine should be no exception. GreyShark (dibra) 15:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – While both templates in a sense are about Palestine, the one is about the geographical area while the other is about the aspirant Arab state. You don't merge a template on the Roman Empire with a template on present-day City of Rome or football club AC Roma just because they all in a sense are about Rome. Bandy boy (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Bandy boy, but perhaps rename the first to Template:Historic Palestine topics, to match the phrasing used in the template itself. There isn't a Palestine (historic region) for it to match, so it's a counterintuitive name anyway. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I realize I was the one who suggested Template:Palestine topics for the latter, but that seems problematic now that I realize there's another navbox that better covers what's at Palestine. I wonder if Template:Palestinian territories topics wouldn't be a better fit. --BDD (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While there is a certain logic behind such a merge it will result in a huge template that is inherently difficult to navigate. {{Palestine (historic region) topics}} has a more religious/historic tilt to it, which suggests that it is not a good fit for merging with an essentially secular template covering the State of Palestine. Size aside, the respective history lists do not overlap and will end up confusing people if they are merged. My alternative suggestion would be {{Palestine (historic region) topics}} -> {{History of Palestine topics}}, which also meshes with BDD's comment regarding what's at Palestine.. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Philg88: Please note that there is already template:History of Palestine for this purpose.GreyShark (dibra) 20:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Greyshark09: Thanks for the heads up. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: I see the logic in the nom, but I far prefer User:Philg88's suggestion. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 03:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: There are two different topics here. However, the issue about getting the names right and consistent with the articles is important. There has been a whole separate discussion on that at Talk:State_of_Palestine#Proposal_to_summarise_all_topics_under_"Palestine", which fizzled out. I suggest we try to finalise the article name discussion first. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2014 (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:ArbCom ruling notice 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 relisted on 2014 May 8 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:25, 8 May 2014 (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:ArbCom discretionary sanctions 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 relisted on 2014 May 8 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:26, 8 May 2014 (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.