Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 28

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 27 March 1 >

February 28 edit

Template:Syrian civil war detailed map 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) 01:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Syrian civil war detailed map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template isn't transcluded anywhere (except one user's talk page archive). It is, however, linked from several articles. Also, as far as I'm aware, we don't have this kind of map for anything else. It should either be used in an existing article (maybe Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War) or converted to an article itself. It definitely doesn't belong as an orphaned template, though. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is clearly against deletion. I've removed that but left the other options. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the map is an excellent map,and all the information updated here is from reliable sources.Alhanuty (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the companion map for Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War. For many months it was included within the article, but it got too big and started creating problems, so the article was modified to only link to it. I would strongly object to the deletion of the template. A vast amount of community work has gone into it, and it's one of the few detailed, accurate, and current sources of information about the Syrian Civil War. 76.118.73.122 (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • its the best map on the internet for the Syrian war...Amensnober91 (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that is the only map in internet that keep live updating and very close to reality on ground. Its valuable and well located.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been following the syrian conflict since its very beginning and I never found anywhere a better map. It's the most reliable map on the net thanks to the diversity of the people working on it. Deleting this map would be a crime against the wiki community. Oussj (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. This is what we call "useful and encyclopaedic content". The map has received an average of over 8500 views every day in the past 30 days (255,982 total views in that time). If you enter "syrian civil war map" into Google, this is the top hit you get. This is by far the most in-depth map of the conflict out there, providing point-by-point, differentiated information for hundreds of locations—the picture, as it were, is indeed worth a thousand words. Once upon a time this was transcluded on the Cities & Towns page, until it got too big for it. But who knows? Maybe we'll innovate it somehow, someday to return it there—it's getting rather big again, and we may have to change how we do things and cut it down to size. And is it perfect? Absolutely not. Like any page in a contentious topic area, it's beset by competing POVs trying to spin all manner of sources every which way to slant things conveniently for them. But you know what? That's all fine, because there is no WP:DEADLINE.
Maybe you don't really care about this information. That's wonderful. I personally don't give two hoots about whatever rigid, prescriptivist views on "what a template should be" motivated you to nominate this in the first place because they don't really matter too much. We're building an encyclopaedia here, not just defending the HTML sandbox. By-the-by, despite the fact that "we don't have this kind of map for anything else" is a meaningless WP:OTHERCRAP argument, we actually do have such a map for something else. This is a new way to graphically represent an ongoing conflict in a collaborative, open-source fashion—far simpler and more easily-accessible than learning how to use arcane image-editing software—that as far as I am aware did not exist until User:Tradedia dreamed it up one day last year, so it's not surprising that it's not yet widely used. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am checking it regularly and AFAIK it is the most comprehensive source about the latest events on the ground.Vekoler (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I strongly oppose the deletion of this map per the arguments of literally everybody else here. EkoGraf (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't just say we should delete it. I said we should do one of several things. Are you okay with either of the other ideas (either transcluding it in an article or changing it to an article)? Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We could maybe create a new article about "Front lines" or "Ground Control" in the syrian civil war. But I think we all agree that there is definitely no way anyone deletes it. Oussj (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, this is one of the most indeepth Syrian civil war map out there. Please keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.2.143 (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move or subst because consensus is that templates should not be linked from articles. This should be in article space, one way or another. —PC-XT+ 02:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind. I don't think it should be merged, but rather moved to a subpage of an appropriate article. If it grows into an article, it can be moved to its own place, but a subpage seems appropriate for this use. —PC-XT+ 02:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The map is a very good tool to understand the details of the war in all the Syrian territory.--Andres arg (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The request itself is nonsense and ridiculous. The map is unbiased and based on neutral sources. It is the best one on the net.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Are you kidding? This map is extremely well-visited and useful. Just because it's sui generis doesn't mean it has to be automatically deleted. The map was originally transcluded and fully in keeping with your "rules", but it outgrew that function, with full consent by the many editors. Its current situation is the most convenient solution that was found after various experimentation. Esn (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP PLEASE THIS MAP, IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT TOOL FOR US THAT ARE NOT SYRIANS TO REALIZE WHAT IS GOING ON IN SYRIA!!!This map is extremely well-visited and useful. PLEASE keep it !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.85.19.39 (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.The map is very useful for the situation in Syria. Daki122 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The status quo would be ideal. Otherwise, the map would be moved to the existing article Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War (where it was originally). Some of the cumbersome supporting items that are now in the article (reference tables) would be moved to a new subarticle that would be linked from the original article. Tradediatalk 02:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Normally WP:subpages aren't used in main space, but I could support an exception for Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Map. I suppose that title would be a "pseudo subpage". Wbm1058 (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. When I talked about “subarticle”, I meant a regular article with a more narrow focus, that would be linked from the main article. Tradediatalk 20:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would a project subpage be another option? The map is so big that an article would be lost around it. An article comprised only of a map doesn't seem proper, but I support the "pseudo subpage" as an option. —PC-XT+ 12:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question in my mind: Is it better to keep a page that is used as neither a template (any longer) nor a true article, though linked from article space, in template space, article space, or, possibly, wikiproject space? —PC-XT+ 20:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : I agree with Tradedia, the creator of the map, on both points.
1) The best solution is to keep it as it is.
2) If that is refused, then the content of the main page could be moved to a sub-page and the map transcluded there again. That could be much more difficult to maintain.
But additionally :
I think it is more appropriate for those in the group editing the map to decide, particularly the creator. We are the ones who do the work to create this asset to Wikipedia, and there is no advantage to rigidly trying to execute your interpretation of the rules. You should be able to show how this causes harm to Wikipedia. Remember, these are "guidelines", which ultimately are there to ensure that development benefits Wikipedia. Forcing such a change does just the opposite. André437 (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep It is monstrous big but very useful. Its sheer size makes inclusion impossible, so this must be one of the exceptions to the rule. (Or it must be given its own article.) The Banner talk 07:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep The map is very good, and gives important information that is not in anywhere else.--Barcaxx1980 (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, great map; useful information regarding the Syrian Civil War. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is important; ~8500 views/day. WP:IAR. Any rule that supports deletion is getting in the way of improving the encyclopedia. Rules get abandoned in war anyways. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The map is very useful that's why I'm strongly oppose of it's deletion. --Ліонкінг (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There was a SVG map during the Libyan civil war on Commons, which was updated frequently and it was too cumbersome. This is a much better and detailed solution that makes updates far easier.-2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:FDC2:E81E:13C5:68B0 (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I might find a lead annoying, but references and links at the bottom would be fine with me. It could be an article with an almost entirely graphical body, perhaps a very short lead, and no table of contents. —PC-XT+ 12:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really feasible given the large size and high, back-and-forth editing activity of the map. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:08, 9 March 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 Jain temple 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 religious building}}, or whatever makes the most sense. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Jain temple (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 20 transclusions. Redundant to {{Infobox temple}} (Transclusion count: 328) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge IB Jain temple seems to be a modified fork of Infobox temple (see diff).--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Underlying lk|eh bien mon prince —PC-XT+ 01:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is, merge with either {{Infobox temple}} per nom or {{Infobox religious building}} per below —PC-XT+ 12:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the argument is similarity to {{Infobox temple}}, then that template specifically talks about Hindu temples. Similarly, {{Infobox Buddhist temple}} talks about Buddhist temples and {{Infobox Jain temple}} talks about Jain temples. These 3 Dharmic religions share a lot in common, however each of them have their own peculiarities. The thing that is throwing people off here is the word 'temple'. Think of Dharmic religions in the same way as Abrahamic religions. The 3 Abrahamic religions have a lot in common, however they happen to have different names for their places of worship (at least in English). The Dharmic religions just use the word 'temple', but each with its own unique meaning (also keep in mind, the word 'temple' is not what is used by the followers of these religions in their own languages).
    If the argument is transclusions, that can be increased. There are about 80 Jain temples in this category [1]
    If this needs to be done, I suggest all 3 infoboxes should be merged, but the different parameters need to be preserved. Along the same lines, Mosque, Church and Synagogue should be merged too and the name could be 'Abrahamic place of worship' or something similar. If a more thorough analysis is required, this discussion should be relisted in relevant discussion boards, not sure how to go about doing that. Thanks.--Aayush18 (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where does {{Infobox temple}} "specifically talk about Hindu temples"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aayush18, note that we indeed have a Template:Infobox religious building that is used for all kinds of religions.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Andy, open up {{Infobox temple}}, the first line you read is this- 'This template is part of the Hinduism WikiProject.'
          eh bien mon prince, if the goal is to merge the templates for every religious building (temples, churches, mosques, synagogues) into the template you've mentioned, then that makes sense. Selectively merging some templates and ignoring the rest, doesn't make sense.--Aayush18 (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's quite commons for templates to be part of more than one project (and I've now added another; see the template's talk page); and that line says nothing about the template's suitability or otherwise for articles about non-Hindu templates. Also, it's perfectly reasonable to "selectively merge templates" - not ignoring the rest, but making informed decisions, based on the similarity or uniqueness of their parameters and ease of adaptation. That's wholly about the templates' content, not about the value we place on the subjects for which they are used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I completely agree that a template can be a part of multiple projects. In my earlier comment, I was responding to your question about why {{Infobox temple}} was a Hindu template (for example, would adding WikiProject Greece make this template suitable for Greek 'temples'? Nope, the parameters here are for Hindu temples- this is in reply to your comment about the template's suitability for non-Hindu temples). Even though you added another WikiProject to it's talk page, it still remains a template for Hindu temples. Like you mentioned, since the focus is on the templates' content, and not on the subject, a generic template for 'temples of dharmic religions' can be created by merging the templates for Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism (as per your comment, this is based on 'the similarity or uniqueness of their parameters and ease of adaptation'). Also, merging everything into Template:Infobox religious building seems pretty straight-forward as well, that template seems to cover everything (this would also comply with 'similarity or uniqueness of parameters and ease of adaptaion').--Aayush18 (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as temple and jain temple both have similar properties except Bhattaraka. Add Bhattaraka and merge them. As Ayush18 said, if Buddhist temple too have same properties, merge it too. -Nizil (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave them independent. As part of Wikiproject India, I believe clear distinction is due to the communities being recognized here. It is a useful property for each community to be able to discover sites, present and historic, through Wikipedia categories. If a temple belongs to multiple religions, then it may have additional infoboxes. In fact, there should be another category for Hindu temples. prat (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not about communities, but about templates; and the template under discussion here is very similar, and serves a near-identical purpose to, the more generic template. Nor is this about categories. So you have an example of a template with more than one infobox, for different religions? I suspect there is none, and that such a case would see the extra infobox quickly removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:55, 25 March 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 rugby union biography 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, and I will place these in the holding cell to allow for time for "stripping back" and rebuilding. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox rugby biography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (5486 transclusions)
Template:Infobox rugby union biography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (527 transclusions)
Template:Infobox Rugby Union biography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (705 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox rugby union biography with Template:Infobox Rugby Union biography and Template:Infobox rugby biography.
The three templates share all the same purpose: they are meant to be used on biographies of rugby union players. All three have a sizeable amount of transclusions, but Infobox rugby biography is the most used with over 5,000 transclusions, and while it has some support for rugby league there are only 83 articles using it which are not about rugby union players, and Template:Infobox rugby league biography is widely used instead. eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I created {{Infobox rugby union biography}} as a rugby version of {{Infobox football biography}} to allow each row in a player's list of clubs to have its own parameters and combat the mess caused by inappropriate use of {{Infobox Rugby Union biography}}. There are still a lot of kinks to be worked out among the rugby projects vis a vis the infoboxes used on biographical articles, so I would hope that these would not be merged just yet; in all honesty, the whole thing needs stripping back and rebuilding from the ground up. – PeeJay 19:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, even if that requires "stripping back and rebuilding from the ground up". We'll need advice from the relevant projects, but a sensible approach would seem to be 1) Consider whether both League and Union biographies could be served by merging all the templates, including {{Infobox rugby league biography}} (5424 transclusions). If so, do that; otherwise... 2) Convert the 83 Rugby league biographies using {{Infobox rugby biography}} to use {{Infobox rugby league biography}}. 3) Merge the Union templates to a template named "Infobox rugby union biography", even if that s mostly based on {{Infobox rugby biography}}. 4) Make {{Infobox rugby biography}} some sort of disambiguation page; or salt it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Until we come up with a viable alternative to any/all of the extant infoboxes, surely we should leave them as they are? Once the solution is found, then we should merge. Otherwise we'll just end up with one template that doesn't do its job properly and no suitable alternative to take its place. – PeeJay 20:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - They all do different things, i was hoping to also come with an alternative one day, we even refused to make changes to the current ones as it would affect over 6000 articles and manually trying to fix each of them may take forever..--Stemoc (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, they do do different things - that's why they should be merged (feel free to challenge this, Stemoc, by explaining why similarly named templates, for the same subject, doing different things are needed). Otherwise, how is an editor to know which to use, and when? Comments about the number of transclusions being a barrier, or "manually trying to fix each of them may take forever" are FUD; we deal with such things all the time, making one template a wrapper of another, allowing alternative parameter names in one template and deploying bots to do substitutions or other grunt work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hope you know a few things about "rugby"? Firstly, I do not think there needs to be 3 templates, 2 is enough and the smaller 2 can be merged but the main template ({{Infobox rugby biography}} should not be changed. If you look at the different templates, the main one incorporates both the codes of the game (league and union) which are completely different sports with a completely different scoring system and it also has the option for the sevens code but has limited options as its already too bloated and thus the other one, {{Infobox Rugby Union biography}} was created to allow for more information...apart from the different codes, its divided into youth provincial, professional and international section as well. The one thing they both have in common are that they are both incomplete..there is still more information that can be added but unfortunately, the people who did all the updating for the templates and had the knowledge for both codes are no longer around..the main reason why its should not be "merged" is because its already very bloated and thus was why it was divided in the first place..If you look at the talk page for the main template, nothing really has been updated for a while now, even with consensus...--Stemoc (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • We either need one biography template for all types of rugby; or one template for each type of rugby. What we do not need, but currently have, are multiple templates for rugby union and multiple templates for rugby league, of which one is shared. That's madness. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it's a no-brainer to try and merge them, as long as the final merged version doesn't mean that we lose required functionality from the existing templates and that the final merged version is "clean", i.e. it doesn't just look like three templates badly thrown together. If a bit of time and effort can be put in to decide exactly what the requirements are for the merged template before we just blindly start merging them for the sake of it, I think it would be of huge benefit. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it isn't broken, don't fix it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're not discussing an "it", we're proposing to merge three templates, which are used for the same purpose. The rationale is not that any of them is "broken", but that they are redundant to each other. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge {{Infobox rugby biography}} is broken, overly complicated and requires fixing. {{Infobox rugby union biography}} does seem to be cleaner and the use of multiple different infoboxes with different parameters across RU players is bizarre. --Bob247 (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Edit. For instance, in {{Infobox rugby biography}}, the section regarding players who have become coaches or referees is broken and displays the title bar for coach or referee incorrectly. For instance: Graham Rowntree. This has been broken for about two years now, with no fixes apparent. The whole issue needs a major overhaul. --Bob247 (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. Either merge into {{infobox rugby biography}} which is by far the most transcluded, or delete them. There was a discussion at Template talk:Infobox rugby biography about making changes to the template. A few things have consensus, others do not, however we can't have forking of templates because a few people disagree. It'd be endless (as I pointed out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union/Archive 14#Infoboxes -- "I'm completely opposed to creating/using a new template – it's unnecessary forking. What is to say someone doesn't come along in two years and propose a third template; where does it end?"). -- Shudde talk 06:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can someone close this stupid discussion?, I'm tired of seeing all the rugby related articles with that ugly deletion notice for over 5 weeks now..--Stemoc (talk) 13:48, 5 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:D.A.F. (band) 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 withdrawn (NAC) Frietjes (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:D.A.F. (band) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with only three relevant links The Banner talk 11:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep and trout. A navbox created yesterday, and you're already out to delete it because the subject matter is incomplete and redlinked? This band has some stature in its dark little cellar of people with oversized boots. The links indicated in this navbox are in line with our usual practice and credible articles for such a band. Per WP:IMPERFECT, it's a commendable action to start building an organised and rational structure for such a group of articles, even before the articles are written. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:EXISTING clearly says 'Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first.' Do you know how likely any of these are to be made into articles? I routinely see redlink See alsos and redlink categories every day which I then delete. The rules are clear for these too but people make the redlinks all the time....William 12:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment from creator - I'm slowly translating DAF-related articles from de:wp (started with Robert Görl, obviously Gabi is next, then the records). Quite a lot of those redlinks will be filled. The template was actually created inside D.A.F. (band) by an IP yesterday, and I made it into a proper separate template - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Usually nominated templates are judged after a week. So in all honesty: you have a week to create two (or more) stubs/articles. The Banner talk 13:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll get to hauling arse then! It is just a little too red at present ... - David Gerard (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's seven links so far ... six of which aren't just a disco hit they covered ;-) More to come - David Gerard (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author was working hard and the template has enough links now. Nomination withdrawn as nominator. The Banner talk 23:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, could someone uninvolved please close this then? Thank you :-) - David Gerard (talk) 18:23, 2 March 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 Orthodox Church 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 as {{Infobox Christian church body}}, or whatever works. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Orthodox Church (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (Transclusion count: 80)
Template:Infobox Anglican Church (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (Transclusion count: 40)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Orthodox Church with Template:Infobox Anglican Church.
Propose merge as "Infobox Christian church body" (or similar final word; to distinguish from infobox for church buildings) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The template could then be used for other Christian denominations. -- Hazhk Talk to me 13:25, 18 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) 07:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge or merge into {{infobox religion}}, seems like that infobox could be used to handle this. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to {{infobox religion}} with redirect per above —PC-XT+ 01:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial Oppose Well, the problem is, Churches cannot be considered a religion, the merge makes it look awkward as if the churches were different religions. The difference between them is that they worship the same God in different ways. However, "Infobox Orthodox church" and "Infobox Anglican church" can be merged to "Infobox Christian Church Body" which can be used on more articles as well. Zince34' 11:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It won't "look awkward", because the name of the infobox is not exposed to the reader in article content. We could just as we give the template the name "Infobox 2438b". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those Parameters at the religion temp are absurd for a church, better to keep an infobox for a Church Body. The advantage by mergin' is that they can be used for other churches as well. Zince34' 09:17, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_28&oldid=1138534263"