Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 April 4

< April 3	April 5 >

April 4 edit

Template:Date series header 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 replace/delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Date series header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This relic is used on less than a hundred articles in basically two domains (snooker and cycling). Succession boxes go at the bottom in every other genre: there is no reason to make an exception here. These are far too distracting. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but normalize: Objecting to this template's coding being different from other succession boxes is an argument for normalizing them with other succession boxes, not for deleting them. (Nominator didn't say to delete them, but TfD tends to presume deletion as the default intent). I have to note that two of the nominator's rationales, however, are invalid, namely that the templates are old "relics" and not as popular as nominator would seem to want them to be. A template's popularity and age have nothing to do with its validity, and both of the arguments are variants of WP:AADD entries. That said, yes, there is no reason not to fold them into today's succession box style. I created these templates when there was no de facto consensus style for such templates, and am surprised they are still in this wide format after all this time. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼ 10:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That outcome is fine by me. "Relics" was simply meant to indicate that they are in that class of obscure template written in the distant past and occasionally surfacing like coelacanths in the 21st century. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to the footer succession template. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacing with standard {{succession box}}-type template. Frietjes (talk) 14:16, 19 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:GTRI evolution 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) 23:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GTRI evolution (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:GTRI evolution with Template:GTRI.
There is nothing in this template that isn't covered in GTRI. ...William 13:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Hey, creator here. These serve two different purposes - GTRI evolution is to explain the complicated history of names associated with GTRI, and I believe was requested in either a GA or FA review. The GTRI template is a bottom-of-the-page related articles template that lists the labs within GTRI. Disavian (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a complicated and inaccessible data table: it'd not obvious that it needs to be included on more than one page. It is orthogonal to the navbox, which there's nothing wrong with. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, fair enough. I did include it in two articles, given that we're talking about multiple semi-independent organizations. It wouldn't be hard to just transclude it in Georgia Tech Research Institute but I don't see that doing so would really accomplish anything. If anything, it should also be in History of Georgia Tech. Disavian (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2014 (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) 01:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The template GTRI evolution is not visually appealing and should be introducted into the article. I would also support a merge, and representation in the easier fashion: "Names: x (1960-1967), y (...)" --LT910001 (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge as suggested by LT910001. Frietjes (talk) 14:15, 19 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 United States District Court case 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) 04:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox United States District Court case (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Infobox template with 98 transclusions, originally created as a fork of Template:Infobox court case. It could be replaced by Infobox court case or Template:Infobox court case 2; I created a test case with all three here. eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this template out of need and it has since been used extensively. While some consolidation of the court case infobox templates might make sense, such as the various courts of last resort in each state, the federal district courts, covered by this template, are already a large complicated set of courts. There are 94 federal district courts and an equivalent number of federal district bankruptcy courts. This one template can adequately handle those 200 courts, but if it gets mixed in with every other court in the United States then things will get confusing for users. In particular, some states call their state courts "District" courts and so you will have people confused between the Minnesota state District courts and the Minnesota Federal District court, etc. I do like some of the subtle graphical differences between this template and "Infobox court case 2" and so think making this Infobox look just like that one could be a good idea, but I think actually consolidating them will cause more trouble than it is worth. Brianwc (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- One alternative is that we could edit District Court Case to use Court Case 2 without deleting it, but I don't really see a need for that. Even if we deleted it outright, nothing would change for the user of the infobox, given that there is almost an exact match between the parameters of the three templates. How would it be any more likely that people would then confuse, say, Minnesota state and federal district courts? If you mean because of the template name, we could always leave the current one as a redirect.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just added an infobox to the District Court summary I am working on User:Sashashekhar/sandbox/WolkOutline and I had to decided between Template:Infobox United States District Court case and Template:Infobox court case 2. I ultimately chose to use Template:Infobox United States District Court case because it had a clear, easy to identify title (e.g. "United States District Court case" instead of "court case 2" or "court case") and it provided a concise summary of the content and notation appropriate to each of the parameter fields on the template. In order for the template system to function efficiently qualifiers like "United States District Court" which account for both the country and branch of the court system are absolutely necessary; these qualifiers reduce some of the confusion that naturally arrises from a diverse group of users accessing a growing list of templates. It may be possible to merge the two, but why not just delete Template:infobox court case 2? Sashashekhar (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Note that ICC & ICC2 are the subject of a separate merge proposal, made today. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the appropriate template coming out of Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_18#Template:Infobox_court_case_2. Others have said the appearance doesn't matter as much as the name of the template, which can be handled by redirects. This way, we don't need to update copies when a change is needed. —PC-XT+ 05:19, 19 February 2014 (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) 00:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Template:Infobox court case and Template:Infobox court case 2 were merged following the outcome of this discussion.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by default: No one has a presented a rationale for deleting the now-merged and different template, nor defended very well the original deletion nomination. I'm not sure why this was even re-opened twice instead of closed the first time around with no consensus to delete. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼ 10:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All things being equal, I'd like a single template. I and don't see any reason for one template for District Court cases, and a different template for other non-SCOTUS cases. I'm going to withhold a !vote for the time being, because I'd like to know what justification there is for the separation first.

One additional comment, the template being discussed here was not listed for WP:Wikiproject Law. I added the {{WPLAW}} template this morning. This will make it show up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/Article alerts on the next daily auto-update of that alert list. Given that this template is particularly important to that group, I think it's worth keeping the discussion open for one last iteration. TJRC (talk) 17:30, 4 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.