Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 28 November 30 >

November 29 edit

Template:Ctr 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. While discussion on a suitable replacement for the obsolete HTML tag has somewhat overshadowed the discussion for the template, there is consensus to delete the template, and replace the current transclusions. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used on only 28 10 articles. Content is <center>{{{1}}}</center>. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe redirect to {{Center}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fine as they both do the same basic thing. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with {{center}} where appropriate and delete. <center> is obsolete, {{center}} uses proper CSS. Low use is not worthy of a redirect. By appropriate, I mean where center is useful; I have found a number of uses in tables with wikitable class which styles to centered columns. --  Gadget850 talk 18:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Intrigued that WIKIMARKUP is OBSOLETE (Obsolete means never used), so don't you mean more fashionable? As in OBSOLESCENT... to you? But do as you will, I don't anticipate doing wiki-tables anymore these days outside the Wikibooks. Center certainly clutters up already crammed wiki-tables more than three letter mnemonics though. And why you lot persist in mistaking unnecessary changes as progress or even wise I will never understand. A tool is a tool, and if you don't use it, no one is pointing a gun saying you must. But how about the poor bloke who is used to it? Suddenly such changes leave her scratching her head wondering why something no longer works and then has to take time (loosing trains of thought, planning, the whole BIG IMPACT!) and all because you can't figure out change is generally NOT a good idea. Sigh. If it ain't broken, don't fix it or ask others to spend time on it. Replace if you or Gadget850 is the one volunteering to do the work and donate the time. Otherwise... grow up. EVERY PAGE CHANGE HAS A COST. Try not to advise making needless ones. // FrankB 02:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're replying to Gadget850, but say "you or Gadget850", so I presume you mean me. My proposal was a redirect, so your "bloke" [sic] would find her markup works as it always did. The change, though, is not needless, as maintaining two templates to do the same thing also has a cost As does the unnecessary use of the template, as highlighted by Gadget850), which this nomination is intended to remove. Since no one is ever compelled to do any work, your emboldened point is irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • replace/redirect Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either replace each instance as appropriate or substitute them in bulk, then either redirect or delete as redundant and obsolete in modern HTML —PC-XT+ 07:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean substitute as with {{subst:}}? Then why hardcode the deprecated tag in articles? And in this thread I smell a "{center} covers it, mostly I guess, sometimes, basic.". (btw, the nom did not mention the obsolete aspect and did not have a replacement option at hand. Was it just usage counting?). Just mentin the (working) replacement, esp in wikitables. All those years of deprecation. -DePiep (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't necessarily mean to substitute the tag. If it was really needed, I guess it could stay, but I don't really see the point. I assumed the tag would be removed, or it would simply be replaced by bot with <center>{{{1}}}</center>. That smell you mentioned is why I changed my !vote to no longer include a replacement option. I believe the nom gave the usage count and demonstrated redundancy with the center tag. "Obsolete" was added by someone else, and I agreed. I did reinstate support for redirection in my !vote, as that could actually be useful, and, of course, I always meant for hand-replacement after the substitution, so I added that into the !vote, as well. (It would stay obsolete until replaced.) —PC-XT+ 05:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, you were not talking about the TfD tag or a similar tag saying it was deprecated, but the HTML tag. Yes, the obsolete argument holds for the substed template, as well. All uses of that HTML tag should ultimately be replaced, but there seems to be a debate about how to replace them. Substitution may be one step in the process, until the next step can be agreed upon, but I would prefer to replace it now. —PC-XT+ 05:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • To be clear: the "smell" I mentioned is not about PC-XT's comments specific, but about the thread in general. And: if there is (still) no replacement in modern HTML, css or whatever, deletion is not im frage. -DePiep (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is a replacement in modern HTML/CSS (semantic CSS classes), it's just that mediawiki doesn't have very good CSS handling, and we can't use that solution (yet). At the same time, I don't think that should keep us from deleting. Substituting the current uses of the template will put the the problems up in your face on the page at the IMO low cost of slightly more elaborate (but more transparent) syntax. Having <center>content</center> is not much more cumbersome than {{center|content}}. Don't get me wrong, I don't think having center tags in our content is a good thing, but I don't think using a center css class, or center tags hidden behind a template is any better. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I understood the smell referred to the thread in general, but thanks for clarifying that. :) —PC-XT+ 05:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rather than "hand-replacement after the substitution", we could modify the template, then Subst: it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • That was my first thought, but I gather one solution would only work for at most the majority of transclusions, and humans would need/want to evaluate what to do with the others, which is why I included that part of my !vote. The only solution that seems acceptable for all of them seems to be substituting as is. —PC-XT+ 05:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and subst. The center HTML tag is obsolete and sticks out like a sore thumb. Our CSS center class should be obsolete for the same reasons. Making the brokenness stick out like a sore thumb is a good thing here, better than obfuscating the problem in a css class. We have no solution for this yet. Let's not pretend {{center}} solves anything practical. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be ok with substitution instead of replacement. If done by a bot, that may be best at this time. Usually, I like grouping the problem under one template to better track it, but there may be raw uses of the html tag, as well, and there seems to be some debate, here. I edited my !vote. —PC-XT+ 04:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and re-purpose. Replace contents with:
<noinclude>{| class="wikitable"
|-
|</noinclude>style="vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; {{{style|}}}" |{{{1|}}}<noinclude>
|}
{{Documentation|Template:Table cell templates/doc}}
</noinclude>
For a long time I wanted to make such a template because creating complex tables in Wikipedia and adhering to KISS principle isn't easy. But now, I can see this template has the perfect transclusions and perfect placement, because all transclusions are lists and tables. For more information, see Template:Table cell templates/doc.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any template that is deleted can be repurposed. Watch the template and when it is deleted you can recreate it as you desire. --  Gadget850 talk 20:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Actually, no. There is always WP:CSD#G4 to consider. Also, there would be a lot of reverts and unpleasantness if the outcome of the TfD was subst and delete. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The template Codename Lisa desires should not be named {{Ctr}}, whose meaning is opaque. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Have you ever visited {{section link}}, {{sectionlink}} and {{link section}}? Or do you happen to know the difference between {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}} which are 99% similar? These examples show that the meaning of template names in Wikipedia is always opaque. In addition, I think it is imperative that the name in this case must be short; length deters its purpose. Plus, this template is already transcluded. What's there to complain? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; and yes. The former templates are poorly named, but there is no deadline for fixing that, and they are not a good reason to make further mistakes in the future. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is totally off topic here; please find another venue to discuss this. There is ample precedent for templates that have been deleted and recreated with the same name but a different use; CSD G4 does not apply in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadget850 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 14 November 2014
Discussion can meander a little. I for one don't really object to exchanging thoughts about the future of this template here, even it touches on stuff that's not directly related but only tangentially. YMMV but I for one find this Point Of Order posturing more harmful than a meandering discussion. Everything gets easier if we don't plaster red tape all over the place. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unwatching discussion. --  Gadget850 talk 15:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Mabbett: Hi again. Look, I am not engaging in an other stuff exists discussion; rather, I contend that no matter what you do, the template name remains largely insufficient for explaining what it does. (A good example is {{Yesno}}.) But let's go straight to a resolution: Please suggest a name.
Now, as for the discussion seen earlier, here is a comparison of the resulting HTML markup:
Template Resulting markup Comment
{{Center|Some text}} in a table 
<table>
<tr>
<td>
<div
  class="center"
  style="width:auto; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;">
Some text
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
Most of the times OK. It creates a block element that might not adhere to table style.
{{Ctr|Some text}} – existing version 
<table>
<tr>
<td>
<center>
Some text
</center>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
Some people here have argued correctly that <center>...</center> is deprecated and is no longer standard HTML. Is it important, especially when MediaWiki is not an epitome of using standard syntax?
{{Ctr|Some text}} – Codename Lisa's proposal 
<table>
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: middle; text-align: center;">
Some text
</td>
</tr>
</table>
Standard, clean and within appropriate CSS scope
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would not object to the replacement of the template with Codename Lisa's code, as long as it doesn't significantly change the result. I do not yet have an opinion on making a template for the purpose, but substituting this code may be better than <center>...</center> tags. —PC-XT+ 05:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and redirect. This should be replaced with the appropriate table styles or with the {{center}} template as appropriate, and then redirected to Template:Center. I'm not a fan of Codename Lisa's proposed repurposing (despite being asked to comment here by them on my talk page). Putting partial table markup in templates encourages editors to create tables by copy and paste without understanding what the markup does, which often leads to errors. Moreover, it makes it hard (impossible?) to edit the tables it is used in with VisualEditor (although I haven't checked recently on the status of VE's table-editing ability). — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mr. Stradivarius: About you VisualEditor point:
    1. They are compatible with VisualEditor, even though the first render is not WYSIWYG. (Subsequent renders look okay.) This not a template problem, but rather a VE problem, which is still in beta.
    2. This problem concerns a whole family of templates, not just this proposed code. In that light, I don't think this is a valid counter-point here. We can alert users in advance instead until the problem is solved.
    3. I also argue that the usefulness of this family of templates outweighs the quirks of VE.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unchanged until a stable alternative is available. No alternative has been provided by the (respected) contributors here. That says that, after years of formal alienating the tag from HTML, WP has not solved this (is this about wikitable & pipe code?). I have been struggling with centering in tablecells often enough and still don't know how to do it, stable & predictable (do we expect each table-editor to know css coding?). So: we need an alternative first (preferably in template form).
    I add that I am not understanding the nom's orginal intention. The only reason mentioned is "only 28 uses" -- which is not a reason for deletion at all. The nom did not mention an alternative, nor the fact of being obsolete in HTML (!). Next time, an "only x uses" reason should be a speedy keep. (Note: I have been invited here by Codename Lisa). -DePiep (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you care to read the discussion above, you will see that your claims "No alternative has been provided" and "The nom did not mention an alternative" are false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the OP = what was proposed; the very second post says "maybe" which I addressed already. -DePiep (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace all uses with {{Center}}. <center>...</center> is deprecated in HTML5 and isn't part of wikitext. There is no reason to ask the developers to make it wikitext either. Just use the replacement css (or the other template that synthesizes it for you). I agree there isn't enough use and typing two extra "e"s isn't going to kill anyone. As for the proposed re-purposing, I don't think it adds anything beneficial to the encyclopedia. I'd rather see classes for this (assuming they don't already exist, and Edokter might be able to expand on whether or not class="center" or something similar might not already do what is asked for in re-purposing... — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • .center does basically do what you want, but also set width: 100%;, which {{center}} in turn resets to auto;. Not the most elegant solution. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd like to stress again, there is not much of a technical advantage of using .center over using <center>. It's both equally bad - apart from the relatively meaningless distinction that the tag is officially obsolete in HTML5 - but it's exceedingly unlikely that any browser will stop supporting the tag any time soon. There are a couple of other options. An inline style roughly per Lisa's example (with the exception that I don't really know what the vertical-align is doing there. It is the default for td elements anyway, and if overridden in some way, there is probably a good reason as to why it is overridden). Personally, I prefer the style directly in the table rather than obfuscating it behind a template, but YMMV.
example of use in different forms
example wikitext notes 
{|
|- style="text-align: center;"
| item1 || item2
|}
 inline styles sometimes mess with mobile. I think it's ok here though. It's transparent in its functioning: you can see directly what it does. You can change the behaviour by changing the inline style directly in the table. It may be simpler to use by those who know css/html don't know all the shorthand templates specific to the English wikipedia. Can be used on a row or on individual items. 
{|
|- {{ctr}}(under lisas proposal)
| item1 || item2
|}
 inline styles; see above. You can probably guess this centers the content by its name. It's not very transparent in how this behaves (requires looking up the content of the template, and being able to understand fairly basic template syntax, as well as fairly basic HTML/CSS). It produces a string that is not self-contained HTML, which poses some problems in new feature development, It can't be ammended by additional styling on the same element. It may be simpler to use by those who know of this template, and don't know about css/html. Can be used on a row or individual items. 
{|
|- class="center"
| item1 || item2
|}
 uses a non-semantic CSS class - which is a bad thing (how bad? YMMV). You can probably guess this centers the content by its name. It's not very transparent in how this behaves, nor is it very opaque (requires looking up the css class in Mediawiki:Common.css, and being able to understand fairly basic CSS). Can be used on a row, but not on individual items. 
{|
|-
| <center>item1</center> || <center>item2</center>
|}
 uses a non-semantic HTML tag - which is a bad thing (how bad? YMMV) The tag is officially obsolete in the HTML5 standard. It's fairly obvious what this does, and very simple to change it. It can only be (easily?) used on single items. 
{|
|- 
| {{center|item1}} || {{center|item2}}
|}
 IMO the worst of all worlds solution. Has all the drawbacks of all the other options, plus one of its own; adding in an additional block element into a table cell. It's shorter than style="text-align: center;", so it has that going for it, which is nice.
They all have their pro's and cons. I only really object to using non-semantic CSS classes to fix something that's not more broken than non-semantic CSS classes themselves are. For relatively simple styling (and this is relatively simple) I prefer using inline styles directly over using inline styles behind a template because of the improved transparency and ease of editing it. I see the use of having shorthand templates that package it, but I don't believe the the compactness of the template outweighs the drawback of indirection. For the argument that it's easier to type, I don't object to substituting such a template in. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is .center not semantic? It depends on context; it may have no semantic relation the the content, but it surely has a functional relation. Take .nowrap... this is a functional class, and so is .center. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The entire reason <center> was depreciated an is now obsolete is that it is non-semantic. All arguments for deprecating and obsoleting the center tag apply equally well for .center (but obviously, W3C can't deprecate or obsolete user-created classes like .center, so it can never be "officially" obsolete or deprecated.) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I'm not pretending that a semantic class (which would be the 'correct' solution IMO) is viable under current mediawiki, but inline styles or center tags are. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
<center> being obsolete is not about semantics; it is about the danger that it is no longer part of HTML5, which we serve. There is a real danger of browsers no longer supporting/ignoring it when rendering HTML5; I don't care what the 'chances' are. Also note that <center> is whitelisted HTML, not wikimarkup. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
we're definitely talking past one other. HTML5 doesn't have a center element because it's a non semantic element. Regardless, having this discussion over so few article transclusions is probably not worth it. I would love to continue the discussion, but this TFD is no longer the right venue. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:18, 17 November 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) 19:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundant. It seems heavily used in railroad station lists where most uses are redundant. See this diff where hundreds of uses of {{ctr}} and align="center" were replaced by one CSS style with a reduction of over 10k bytes. --  Gadget850 talk 18:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to {{Center}}. Since most/all usages of {{Ctr}} appear to be in table cells, these should be replaced by style="text-align:center;" CSS, either directly or using Lisa's proposed new template. SiBr4 (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2015 (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:DC Comics' shared universe films 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) 19:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DC Comics' shared universe films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The fictional universe is still developing, and once it is officially titled with more films released, this template shall be revived. Moreover, no future DC comics film (except Dawn of Justice) has yet entered production. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:47, 22 November 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) 19:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This template is loaded with links that don't really belong; all the "Adapted characters" and "locations" links in particular are really pushing the boundaries of relevance. That editors have felt compelled to pad out the template with links like these is another sign that the subject of DC Comics shared universe films can't support a useful navbox, at least not yet.--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NukeofEarl. Once again, editors are trying to rush into creating similar articles/content as the Marvel Cinematic Universe has, which just does not exist yet for DC. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:34, 2 December 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:Audi Sport Team Joest driver timeline 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 December 7. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:41, 7 December 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 beef 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 replacing with {{infobox food}}. If someone wants to redirect it, go ahead. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional closing statement: The main argument for deleting (or redirecting) the template was the opinion that it is redundant to {{infobox food}}, which was demonstrated with a sample edit. The argument against was based on the name with the opinion that "beef" is not a prepared food. However, this argument was countered by the fact that {{Infobox food}} is a redirect to {{Infobox food}}. Hence, I found this argument against deletion to be weaker than the argument for deletion as no strong evidence was presented that beef is not considered food (or a prepared food). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox beef (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox prepared food}}, as shown in this edit - indeed, the latter template offers better data fields. Only 29 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're a smart reader — at times. Now read it as "beef is not the same as prepared food" (and don't forget to word 'prepared'). -DePiep (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Beef. It's What's For Dinner. We have Beef cattle for the live ones. Montanabw(talk) 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because, though there is a debate about the classification of beef as, I assume, unprepared ingredient or prepared food, I don't think it really matters in terms of template usage —PC-XT+ 00:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template name does matter. I don't see how an editor is helped having to add {{Infobox prepared food}} to a page about (raw or this unspecified) meat. -DePiep (talk)
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) 19:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and move 'template:infobox prepared food' to 'template:infobox food'. Frietjes (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At least this starts making sense. But why not {{Infobox meat}}? Oh forget. This is not a merge proposal at all. DePiep (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Here's my beef (yes, all of the beef related puns have now been addressed), yes, it's redundant based upon its context/usage. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:19, 1 December 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 California State Legislature 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) 20:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{Infobox legislature}}. Only 11 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, {{Infobox legislative session}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing redundant seen, apart from two words in the template title. No merge mapping provided. -DePiep (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Either that or let's make 50 separate infoboxes, one for every state, no matter how few articles are linked. This is "Balkanization" of infoboxes and creates confusion for people like myself who are not prone to drill down into unneeded levels of minutae for the "proper" infobox. Montanabw(talk) 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how the other 49 states matter. The burden of proof is for the deleter. That is: proof that the parameters, labels, and domain meaning (say, juridical meanings) are the same. For now, the juridical system in CA is not the same as the one the of the world. Confusion is not reduced when there is one template with one-parameter-set fits all template (I don't know, but does "judge" in US means the same as "judge" in UK, in Germany, in Spain?). I get the impression that you are wishing for another improvement, possibly easier finding of terms & specific words (parameters). -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Juridical"" This infobox refers to a legislative body, not a court system. You clearly know squat about this issue. The issue is that if we have a template for the California legislature, there are 50 other state legislatures just in the USA, and it would be utterly ridiculous to have separate templates for each of them. I see no requirement to have the merge already finished before one even nominates. And, furthermore, {{Infobox legislature}} is already used - and properly - for other US State legislative bodies, note Arkansas General Assembly and others. There are over 1500 transclusions lf that infobox and it adequately covers everything from China to the UK as well as the USA. Your argument here is realy rather stunning in its ridiculousness. Montanabw(talk) 20:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • "You clearly know squat about this issue". Never claimed. Nor does the nom. But at least I do not claim that the parameters in the topic at hand are the same. Now if the topic is "juridical", "judicial", "vulcans", or "horses": the burden is upon the proposer(s) to show equivalence between the two.
          Second, the proposal is not about creating 50 templates for 50 states at all. Again, why do you introduce that? Since you clearly don't know squat about logical dependency/independency nor about template design, I'll spell out your own issue for you: you are asking for a template like {{Infobox U.S. state legislature}}, which could cover 50 states (I won't do the further research for you; this is OT anyway). -DePiep (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Not seeing the redundancy. {{Infobox legislature}} deals with the legislative bodies themselves, while {{Infobox California State Legislature}} deals with individual sessions of the California State Legislature. Think of it as the difference between {{Infobox legislature}} and {{Infobox United States Congress}} (which this template is based off of). They have completely different functions and include completely different information. If people don't like a California-only template and want a more generic one, then create that template first. {{Infobox legislature}} does not work; it's missing a lot of useful fields such as terms of legislative leaders. There is no reason to shoehorn this template into a completely inadequate substitute. --Kurykh (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{Infobox legislature}} seems perfectly adequate for the job; it is used, for example, on 59th Utah State Legislature. Alternatively, {{Infobox legislative session}} exists and is used on 57th Utah State Legislature. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two points. First, your pointing to two templates being used for the same legislative body shows a complete lack of standardization and consensus between your proposed options. By contrast, for the US Congress and California State Legislature articles, they all use the same template respective to their series (see {{Infobox United States Congress}}). Second, both {{Infobox legislature}} and {{Infobox legislative session}} are missing fields that this template and {{United States Congress}} have. For example, this template is able to cleanly show a succession of speakers during the 1995-96 speakership fight; the proposed substitutes create a huge mess. If standardization is what you want, then we should first choose one of those two templates and incorporate the missing fields before discussing this template's deletion. --Kurykh (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm glad that we seem to agree that lack of standardisation is a bad thing. Removing this redundant, overly-specific template in favour of one of the available and more generic, alternatives will reduce that problem. This discussion is about how to resolve the issue you describe; a completed solution is not a prerequisite for the discussion of how best to solve the issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not asking for a completed solution; I'm asking why modifying your alternative templates to incorporate the missing fields seems to be out of the question. If that's permitted, then merging the templates would be a solution worth considering. --Kurykh (talk) 02:15, 21 November 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) 19:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, would probably support merging, but this isn't a merger discussion. Frietjes (talk) 18:04, 30 November 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) 20:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Infobox template with 120 transclusions, originally created as a fork of {{Infobox court case}}, to which it is redundant, as demonstrated here. A previous discussion in April this year reached no consensus, but since then the two alternative templates have been merged at {{Infobox court case}}. A redirect would allow the US-DC-specific name to be retained. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that {{Infobox U.S. Courts of Appeals case}} is already a wrapper for {{Infobox court case}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Keep. by redirect into {{Infobox court case}}. I have completed the parameter comparision that is here. All parameters from the TfD'ed template now present. My conclusion: A redirect would not malform or misrepresent any parameter (and the target template has a nicer layout using headers etc.). -DePiep (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having read the Brianwc and Rrius contributions, I withdraw my !vote. Another case of this is not a merge proposal, so it can not be merged as there is opposition. Also, the proposal is immature, it does not specify how to handle the differences (leaving it to others, like me, to solve the issue -- incorrect as it now shows). Looks like a "no consensus" to me. -DePiep (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Allow me to assure you, DePiep, that your contribution is not required. Other, constructive, editors can resolve any remaining issues without "requiring" your input, following discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to {{Infobox court case}}, per everyone above. Montanabw(talk) 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per everyone above —PC-XT+ 00:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I created this template. I'd like to make sure that all the District court seals would still show up properly within the new template. That's essential. But the merge, even if it technically works, will make using the template much more difficult. There are 94 federal district courts, an equal number of federal district bankruptcy courts, and then several specialized federal trial courts. Basically, around 200 courts that should be served by this template. If you mix them all in with the generic template eventually you're going to get namespace conflicts (if not immediately). This template is for federal courts. But this urge to merge everything into a generic one is going to presumably include all the state courts too. That's the problem. Many states, such as Kansas, refer to their state courts as "District" courts too. So it's going to be very confusing to template users which string to use to refer to the Kansas federal district court versus one of Kansas' 31 state district courts. This is an instance where two templates for apparently similar purposes is actually extremely useful, not accidental, and merging makes things worse for users, not better. Brianwc (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said in the nomination, "...a fork of {{Infobox court case}}, to which it is redundant, as demonstrated here". Have you reviewed the linked page? It appears to address your former concerns, fully. Your latter points appear to be around hypothetical problems with no basis in fact. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now The infoboxes for US federal cases have parameters for the laws at issue and the holding. There has been no discussion of how to retain that, nor of the fact that changing this one without changing the other federal court case templates would make district case pages different from higher court case pages for no discernible reason. -Rrius (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • So discuss it; that's why this discussion was opened. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ummm, okay... I thought that served as an invitation for you, the one who is proposing to get rid of the template, to explain how you plan to do so without disturbing the information provided by those parameters or at least assuring that you will somehow manage it, or explain why you think it is unnecessary to save that information. It isn't really my responsibility to tell you how you are supposed to do it. I raised the question and said I oppose a change until the issues are discussed. I'm not sure what that snotty comment was supposed to illicit from me, so the best I can do is just point back to what I said and once again ask you to engage with the issues raised. -Rrius (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said in the nomination, "...a fork of {{Infobox court case}}, to which it is redundant, as demonstrated here". Having checked that page, you will have seen that the parameters to which you refer are already present in the more generic template, If you do not discuss your apparent concerns with them, how am I or anyone else supoesed to address them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Brianwc and Rrius. Might change my mind if the nominator (or someone else) actually responds to their concerns with convincing solutions. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:45, 29 November 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) 19:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, would probably support merging, but this isn't a merger discussion. Frietjes (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As DePiep notes above, "All parameters from the TfD'ed template now present. My conclusion: A redirect would not malform or misrepresent any parameter (and the target template has a nicer layout using headers etc.).". You will see that the nomination links to a testcases page which shows that the nominated template is redundant to the more generic one. What would you merge? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — To support due process, I am striking my merge !vote, above. —PC-XT+ 07:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is "due process". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was talking about my !vote, in particular, not the nomination. I think the template should be turned into a wrapper, first. After that, I will probably support replacement, if there is no big advantage to the automatic image handling. —PC-XT+ 00:08, 7 December 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 criminal organization edit

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox criminal organization (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox criminal organization}} {{Infobox organization}} (into which any unique and required parameters should be merged). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: The template can't be redundant to itself. Which other template is {{Infobox criminal organization}} redundant to? Jarble (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that; fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or speedy keep. Incomplete nomination. Nom does not provide parameter mapping or any base for equalness. Don't leave it to others to solve or prove. -DePiep (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is now becoming tiresome to have to point out the false premise in your objections; not least that there are no grounds for "speedy keep". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tiresome? You have not even started making a substantial response. Maybe it is your dismissive attitude that makes you tired. -DePiep (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: If this is for mafia organizations and drug syndicates, is there anything better than the law-abiding "infobox organization" it would be moved into? Hate to lump these sorts with legitimate companies and such. Is there an "infobox criminal" or anything? Montanabw(talk) 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per DePiep—a solution in search of a problem. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "problem" is the extra maintenance workload caused by having redundant templates; and the extra cognitive load for editors who have to figure out which template to use, when. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: I think on this one, I don't buy the other reasons for keeping, but personally I'm not fond of the wrapper of "Criminal" either; "person" is a bit too general. I can see potential arguments for this template creating an edit war over whether a group IS "criminal," but I don't see that as an issue of concern to anyone else. Montanabw(talk) 20:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative merge — Templates shouldn't really be used to categorize things, though I do understand the concern. If the group is claimed to be an organization, whether or not it is legitimate, it can probably use the general template to display this claimed information. —PC-XT+ 00:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DePiep. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per DePiep - SantiLak (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The parameters in {{Infobox criminal organization}} with no equivalent in {{Infobox organization}} are:

  • |named after=
  • |founding_location=
  • |years_active= (use |formation= & |extinction=)
  • |ethnicity=
  • |rivals=

None of these are unique to criminal organisations; all may apply to non-criminal organisations, and their totality does not justify a separate template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added those which are struck through and here is a sample conversion; and another; and a third. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. This is TfD. Here is where proposes a well-based merge (ins and outs in the nomination), and one awaits the discussion. What you just did is 1. start a discussion, 3. enforce your own opinion before closure. That belies your own nom statement of to be discussed. -DePiep (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And here we are, discussing. Do you have anything constructive to add? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added those is not discussing. It is disrupting the discussion. I have reverted them (let me spell this out: one does not implement ones preferred outcome of a discussion beforehand. You are supposed to convince people here, not enforce. Since there are keep arguments here, you can not perform a "speedy merge"). -DePiep (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You appear, again, to be inventing "rules" on the fly. Your assertions have no substance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, and revert the undiscussed addition of parameters to {{infobox organization}}. ethnicity and rivals, in particular, require discussion. Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was sympathetic to keeping this, but given the analysis I think a merge is appropriate. A |years active= parameter would be useful in the target, as many organisations (particularly corporations) continue to exist long after they cease trading. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC).
  • Keep Bladesmulti (talk) 05:37, 29 November 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) 19:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as this is not a merge proposal (to support due process I struck my prior !vote) —PC-XT+ 07:21, 1 December 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 U.S. legislation 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) 02:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox U.S. legislation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox legislation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox U.S. legislation with Template:Infobox legislation.
Redundancy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose -- I don't see how a merger would provide any increase in benefit to the reader nor any increase in the value of the resulting work(s). The U.S. is not only unique enough in it's bicameral, co-equal, Federal legislative branch of government to warrant its own information "blocks" and approach by itself but the serialization, codification and citation of that body's statutory output is also convoluted enough (e.g. U.S. Code, Statutes at Large et. al) to merit it's own information scheme as well.

    The claim of "redundancy" might be appropriate at the technical, template level but is woefully lacking when understanding & working with the actual content at hand.-- George Orwell III (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - George Orwell III hits the nails on the head. The U.S. legislative process is sufficiently unique to warrant a separate infobox. And to add another example to the list that George has, I'll add that the U.S. legislative process also distinctly involves executive vetoes and subsequent legislative overrides. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - agree that the US system is so distinct that it warrants a separate template. Also, if there is only one template, there may be a tendency for it to be US-centric, becoming difficult to use for non-US legal situations. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The redundancy is indeed at the technical level; the issue is not the "uniqueness" or otherwise of the US system, but whether or not we need one or two templates to display the relevant information. The benefits of removing or redirecting (merging) redundant templates are widely understood; and include a reduction in the maintenance overhead, and lowering the cognitive load for editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: I think you're making too many unsupported assumptions/inferences. Template:Infobox U.S. Legislation is a one off call made directly to Template:Infobox, the mother/parent of all Infoboxes. How is that redundant? What is pointless is making it a redirect to another template that is also a one off call being made directly to the same base Infobox template -- in effect making it twice removed from the parent instead of just once directly. There is no redundancy issue here that cannot be overcome with simple adjustments in categorization if anything at all. And normally I'd agree to the premise of a possible reduction in maintenance overhead if at least the css and/or inline stylings matched up -- but they don't in this case. I would think that fork alone would increase the amount wrangling needed to maintain the distinct styling for both viens in a single template never mind the difference gap in actual utilization world-wide.

      "Merging" something like Template:Infobox UK Legislation might make far more sense to do; not only because the rendering of the two are nearly identical layout & style wise, but much of the parameters, labeling, content and their default values better align with other legislative bodies (ca, nz, au, etc.) more so than they ever would with the U.S's. I shouldn't have to be familiar with the intricacies of the majority of the world's legislative output just to be able to navigate a single one - a rather unique one at that (so much for "cognitive load"). The fact the UK one handles Wales, Scotland, Ireland and the like ultimately goes against the premise that consolidation automatically usurps "uniqueness" at the end of the day too... or somehow will increase value over the long haul as well.

      Sorry. I just don't think its worth doing. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • The redundancy is in having a specific, (in this case US) template to do a job that an existing, more generic template can do. I note that you advance no argument that the more generic template cannot do the job. There is absolutely no need to use different styles; indeed, unifying style is another argument in favour, and advantage, of merging. The UK template could be merged also, but that's a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just because a so-called "more generic" template can be made to reproduce the current output with enough diffusion and some effort does not automatically make it worth doing. I made the case - and have a small consensus (so far) - that the "uniqueness" of the U.S. legislative system and their legislative output meets inherent notability to the point where leaving it to it's own 'puddle of water in the larger sea' makes far more sense than demoting it would - both at the future usability level and the current familiarity level - in this specific case. Making it all "look the same" doesn't help matters for those first landing here on legislative articles that happen to share or have similar titles/purposes either.

          In addition, I don't appreciate being 'bold texted' [well establish to be the equivalent of shouting someone down] by somebody who is suppose to be running a formal, constructive proposal. I really didn't expect the usual User talk page roustabout for simply voicing my opposition here. So without an apology first, I see no reason to comment any further either way. Good Luck. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Andy, "a more generic template can do". Always. That one is called {{Infobox}}. What is your point?
Now back to content. Can you be more specific about "The redundancy is indeed at the technical level"? What does that include, and what does it exclude? -DePiep (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid using reductio ad absurdum/ straw men fallacies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Simple for you: don't answer the absurdums and do answer the questions. BTW, I note that this is the second time in a row here that you ignore the question. -DePiep (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge: So long as all the parameters are kept. To have multiple templates makes things complicated (and are there separate infoboxes for UK leigslation, Spanish legislation, etc...?) . As someone who works on US Law-related articles on occasion, I would simply reach for Infobox legislation, provided it had all the parameters I needed. I hate having to dig through 120,000,000 templates to find the nitpicky one that has the three parameters that were omitted from a more general one. I used this one for my FA-class article Horse Protection Act of 1970, and remember having to ask the techies to help me fix all the complicated parameters. Anything to streamline and simplify templates for us non-tech sorts would be valuable. Montanabw(talk) 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand this. As someone who "works on US Law-related articles", why would you not prefer to have a template named "Infobox U.S. legislation"? Saves you from trawling through 120,000,000 parameters. Does it help if you have to read documentation for |royal_assent=? And how does it help you if the parameter list does not mention SCOTUS? As for complicated parameters - isn't that to be solved within the template? (if it's complicated for US legislature, how would it be simpler for general legislature?). This last point is for template improvement, not for throwing all bads together in one template. -DePiep (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The only reason for deletion the no mentions is this word, "Redundancy", later specified to "The redundancy is indeed at the technical level" (10:06). But actually, there is little or no redundancy. Out of 13+38 labels (lefthand text) in US+generic template, only 7 are the same (same words); headers not counted. And in the 68+55 parameters, 2 (two) pairs exist. So 119 parameter names have no match. By these numbers only, one can say that there is no redundancy. On top of this, one can safely state that the legal terms in the US are not equal to those worldwide. That is about the exact names of items involved. Legal words for process, actors, statuses: all are specific to a juridical system (incidental overlaps do not deny this). So next to those numbers, there is no base that the legal domains (as in: knowledge, field of work) are the same. There is no redundancy.
With the TfD the burden of proof (proof that this is a sound improvement) is with the proposer. However, the proposer has given a one-word reason, and that one now has shown wrong. Clearly the nomination was without any check beforehand (no technical mapping, no considerations of the judicial terms present). This way the actual, constructive merge job is left for others to work out. To compare, a preparing discussion at a talkpage leaves much more time & space for the subtleties of a merge, especially since it invites domain knowledge (those who know about judicial terms).
Third point is that I find the attitude of the nom not constructive. When I asked for clarification of the 'technical redundant' remark made, no answer was given (22:13). By then, another serious contributor already had left this discussion for being shouted at in boldface (the non-engaging response was a snark, 17:09). As a result, the boldfacing was not reconsidered, and its content was not addressed by the editor. I ask the closing admin to clearly describe how & by what that subthread (say, those with the George Orwell III contributions) is used. And I myself still have no idea what the grand idea behind this merge proposal is, nor were my queries into this answered. -DePiep (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As described in my comment above, there is no "Redundancy" (the whole reason for this merge). No idea or plan has been brought forward on how to actually merge by parameters, texts & judicial content. The discussion has not developed into a constructive path. -DePiep (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The redundancy of a country-specific template when a global template already exists is logically self-evident. The purpose of this discussion is to determine how to merge them; not TO present a fait acompli. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Discussion with you is useless before you correct your dismissive snarky answers you made earlier. -DePiep (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Considering the slew of editors who disagree with you, there is clearly nothing "self-evident" about your position. You'll need to do a much better job convincing people than ignoring questions, pointing out your logical superiority, and using boldface in lieu of making an argument. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 14:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • That a "slew" of, er, just four editors apparently don't understand template redundancy has little to do with logic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • My apologies; I wrote that under the assumption that you actually wanted to convince other editors of the merits of your proposal and attempt to establish consensus that this template should be deleted. Since you apparently have already determined that consensus exists for your position—as evidenced by your bulletproof boldface text arguments and the whole 2 !votes for it—I clearly am wasting my time. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 14:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in support of !delete vote: The way to handle a 120,000,000 parameter infobox is to have samples in the documentation that allow people like me to copy and paste the proper parameters. Seems to me the best of both worlds; no need for the tech problems caused by a zillion templates, but where multiple parameters WOULD cause confusion for people like me, create the proper subset as an example. Much easier for everyone, particularly where even the US Legislation infobox already has some confusing parameters that cause problems for us non-techies. Montanabw(talk) 20:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a complete set of U.S.-specific parameters for you to copy in a US article. Putting all those legal system specifics in one template would really make that 120,000,000 figure a reality. (I thought you were making a joke). I think you are asking for a cleanup of the US template (reduce complexity, improve documentation). -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or, by numbers: the two templates have 121 unique parameters (68+55 minus two double names) as I noted above. That's not a merge, that's stacking two infoboxes under one title. And all the complexities you met in the US version would be in the merged version. All of them, plus the other unneeded parameters you'll have to skip. -DePiep (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You conveniently ignore synonyms, such as |effective date= / |date_effective=; |introducedby= / |introduced_by=, etc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion with you is useless before you correct your dismissive snarky answers you made earlier. -DePiep (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But how, PC-XT? This is going circular: this TfD has no proposal for the actual merge (say, by parameter mapping). A "merge" conclusion would be based on !voted opinions ("let's do it") only. Then after closure, the merge would be enforced because of that outcome, no matter what wrongs, problems & issues are introduced. Because the merging editor will always point to this closure. That is why I call this immature: there is no thorough proof of overlap, based on content analysis (domain knowledge). -DePiep (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would not necessarily be enforced. If a problem is found that requires more discussion, the merge wouldn't happen without that discussion. It would be nice if all the technicalities could be worked out ahead of time, but there are many templates awaiting merge with no clear mappings. Merge later, as Int21h says below, would be ok with me, as well, as there is no deadline. —PC-XT+ 23:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I disagree that the European-American federal statutory legislation scheme is somehow so different from other European schemes; there is the act of parliament at question (cited as session/chapter laws) and the acts it amends (the act creating the US Code, as amended, known as the US Code), as well as the procedural history and related legislation such as rules and regulations of the executive bodies. But... We simply don't know enough about non-English speaking countries' legal systems. I can't even decipher the Spanish, French and Italian court systems, much less observe how their statutory legislation schemes are implemented in practice. I've just started on European-American sub-national schemes (New York's overview is done although I haven't really started on {{New York legislation}} yet, only ~55 states and occupied territories to go, not counting the Philippines). Yes, there are caveats to many legislative bodies, such as the UK, who's statutory legislation must be approved by an old woman who lives in a castle (dragons, anyone?). There is also the question of delegated legislation (regulations). We just need to make an ontological study of legislation along with the relevant old ladies and dragons, and carefully merge them into a master template, but we just aren't there yet. So.. Merge later. Int21h (talk) 19:04, 20 November 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) 19:29, 29 November 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 chancellor 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. During the course of the discussion it was re-written as a wrapper for {{Infobox officeholder}}. There may be consensus for merging it with {{Infobox officeholder}}, but that template was not tagged for merging. However, feel free to renominate for merging along with another template if you still want it merged. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox university chancellor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox officeholder}} (into which any unique parameters should be merged). Could be made a wrapper. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support deletion per Pigs. Tony (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First have the parameters in the target template. This TfD cannot decide on another template. Start here. -DePiep (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge: See below for an idea. But officeholder is an easy merge, nice generic template, and otherwise we are going to have ones for University President, University Dean of Students, University Athletic Director, where will it end? I DO presume any deletion would incorporate needed parameters into the master template. Montanabw(talk) 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with template:infobox officeholder. I just rewrote it as a frontend and found two missing parameters which would need to be merged (or removed). Frietjes (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the two missing parameters into {{Infobox officeholder}}, then replace and delete unless keeping as a front-end would be better for some reason —PC-XT+ 05:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or wrap All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC).
  • Delete. Redundant to {{Infobox officeholder}}. Graham (talk) 21:38, 28 November 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) 19:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepas wrapper, as above, I would support a merge, but it is better to use the proper procedure —PC-XT+ 07:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been rendered moot, as the template is now a wrapper for the officeholder infobox (I didn't realise Frietjes' rewrite, mentioned above, was live and not in their userspace - thanks, for that, Frietjes). The two missing parameter, |salary=, which may not be used, and |institutions= are catered for by the |blank= parameters. If they're not needed, all we need to decide is whether to keep the wrapper, or have a bot Subst: it.

See:

for tracking, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 1 December 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 faculty 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. While this was orphaned out of process, there seems a rough consensus to delete anyway. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox university faculty (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox university}} (into which the one or two unique parameters should be merged; and to which {{Infobox university school}} already redirects). Only 10 transclusions. OrphanedAndy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. First have the parameters in the target template. This TfD cannot decide on another template. Start here. -DePiep (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very convincing. -DePiep (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, why discuss at all. You might as well close this TfD too, Andy. All other editors should apologizse for even thinking about this. -DePiep (talk) 02:31, 23 November 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) 19:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • indifferent, but here are the edits which orphaned it [1] [2][3][4][5][6][7] Frietjes (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have struck the merge part of my !vote, but kept the delete part as it seems redundant enough —PC-XT+ 07:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant and no longer in use. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There are significant differences between a university and its various academic subunits, including constituent colleges, schools, institutes, departments, faculties, etc. It would make far more sense to maintain a separate, simpler template for the academic subunits, and omit the 15 to 20 parameters of Infobox university which are neither necessary nor desirable for the subunits, instead of pushing for a longer, more complex, all-in-one template that inevitably leads to undue infobox length and the inappropriate use of optional parameters that should invariably be omitted from the infoboxes of the subunits. I would support a merge of faculty, law school, med school, business school templates into a single infobox for the subunits (e.g., Template:Infobox academic division), with a small handful of added parameters that are specific to the subunits and not needed by the parent universities. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would not mind modularizing in some way, but if that happens, we have the diffs to change, later. This template does not seem to be needed. —PC-XT+ 00:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @PC-XT: For the reasons I have already stated in this TfD discussion, as well as those TfDs for Infobox academic division, Infobox medical college, and Infobox university faculty, this template (as well as those other related templates just mentioned) should be merged and redirected to Template:Infobox academic division. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would not oppose such a merge. I understand the difficulties that arise from overloading templates. The merged template could either wrap the university template, or keep parameters out of the university template. If this template is required to complete the merge, it could be userfied or something to keep for the merge proposal. —PC-XT+ 23:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC) I update my !vote to support your merge idea. Either way, it is unused and redundant, so we really should merge one way or another. If it needs to be kept for another merge proposal, it could be userfied. —PC-XT+ 00:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe we should discuss these merges separately on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities, so multiple proposals can be considered simultaneously. —PC-XT+ 00:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PC-XT: Yes, sir, that is an excellent plan. The re-opened TfD merge discussion regarding Template:Infobox academic division will have been pending for seven additional days tomorrow, on top of the 31 days it was previously open; I will request that it be closed after having been open for a total of 38 days. After that, we can move the discussion to the talk page of WikiProject Universities so the creators, major contributors, and primary users of these templates (and all other concerned editors) can voice their opinions in a collegial discussion. I'm wiling to bet a fiver that it gets resolved with a lot less drama and in a lot less time than the two months these contested TfD discussions have been pending. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: Please be mindful of this canvassing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's an orphan and a runt. To my eye it contains an arbitrary set of parameters, and misses parameters whch I might expect. Why, for instance, can't I say where my Faculty is (as if location is unimportant), but I can list the Fight_song (as if that is.). It's just not a very helpful thing. Kill it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The proper target for a merge of this template is not Infobox university, but Infobox academic division. And there is no need for a "fight song" in either template, but even less so in an infobox for a university's constituent college, school or department. That belongs on an athletic program infobox template; it's also a red herring. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2015 (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 academic division 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) 02:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox academic division (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox university}} (into which the one or two unique parameters should be merged; and to which {{Infobox university school}} already redirects). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. First have the parameters in the target template. Nom "redundant" claim is not correct (as they noted themselves). This TfD cannot decide on another template. Start here. -DePiep (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And again, your presumptions as to what must happen before a TfD can be discussed are false, as is your attempt to put words in to my mouth. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean delete: But is there an "infobox college department" or other similar? Are we merging all these concepts? Montanabw(talk) 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Montanabw: there is no "infobox college department", but - as noted - the equivalent {{Infobox university school}} already redirects to {{Infobox university}}, which already serves for either a whole university, or a single department, through the use of its |parent= parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, though this name may possibly be useful as a redirect —PC-XT+ 06:09, 19 November 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) 19:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, I would potentially support merging, but this isn't a merger discussion. Frietjes (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You advance no argument as to why a separate template is needed for "academic divisions" than for "college departments" or "university schools". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • And rightly so. It is up to you, nominator, to argue for your proposal. You have brought not one useful point so far, but personal opinions. -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renominate for merging, which was my intention with many of these merge !votes —PC-XT+ 08:10, 1 December 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 medical 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. There is a rough consensus to delete, and while the transclusions were removed out-of-process, now that the template isn't used anywhere the discussion about merging it is moot. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox medical college (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox university}}, to which {{Infobox college}} redirects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I see that the template is being used in several articles. How to map the fields in this template with an alternate template? Also there are a few specific fields in this such as 'directorate'. What do we do about them? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 14:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only parameters without a direct equivalent seem to be |telephone=, which should not be in an infobox per WP:NOTDIRECTORY; |ds= (meaning "deputy superintendent"), for which, if it is not added to the more generic template, there are |head= and |head_label=; |alumni_website=, which arguably also should not be present, but which could be added to the generic template if a need exists; and some style overrides which appear to be (and should be) deprecated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for clarifying, Andy Mabbett. Will the remaining fields be renamed appropriately using a bot? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Depends; a common solution is to make the template to be deleted a wrapper for the other template then Subst: it, but there are other options. However, as the template in question has only 23 transclusions, it my be quicker to swap them manually. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or speedy keep. (ec). Multiple parameters are not covered. Nom should have mapped this. The burden to prove (un-)equalness is not for the opposer. Bad nomination. -DePiep (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The matching of parameters is addressed above, and the resolution of any remaining issues is a matter for this discussion; not a prerequisite for it to take place. There are, of course, no grounds for a speedy keep. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The parameter mapping should be done at first instance (note that you added it here after my post here). The original nom post left the burden to others. -DePiep (talk) 22:53, 17 November 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) 19:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment seems like this might require a merger discussion since |management=, |directorate=, |department=, |alumni= and |profess= don't have equivalents in {{infobox university}}. some could be handled by |free= and |head=, but there is also |vp= and |ds= so if you have too many of these there aren't enough free labels to handle them all. Frietjes (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • |directorate= and (most likely "or") |department= would use |parent=. |vp= is directly equivalent to |vice-president=. |ds= to |deputy_superintendent=, now in {{Infobox university}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seem to be no Wikipedia articles on any type of college or university (nor university school, department or other such sub-division) which have a deputy superintendent; and certainly none of the very few articles using this template have one. Where is this needed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone is still in any doubt about the redundancy of the nominated template: even before this TfD, {{Infobox university}} was already in use on:

and many more besides; in fact, on far more medical college articles then the nominated template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this should be reopened as a merge discussion —PC-XT+ 08:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be a waste of time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • My concerns have been addressed, so I struck the part about a merge discussion, but do you think it would be better to open these discussions starting with Redundant to ... as a merge, instead? They could still end in a delete or redirect verdict, and the notice would reach more eyes. —PC-XT+ 04:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This template is now orphaned' in article space. No parameter merging was required. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant and no longer in use. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There are significant differences between a university and its various academic subunits, including constituent colleges, schools, institutes, departments, faculties, etc. It would make a great deal more sense to maintain a separate, simpler template for the academic subunits, and omit the 15 to 20 parameters of Template:Infobox university which are neither necessary nor desirable for the subunits, instead of pushing for a longer, more complex, all-in-one template that inevitably leads to undue infobox length and the inappropriate use of optional parameters that should be omitted from the infoboxes for university subunit articles. I support the pre-planned merge of faculty, law school, med school, business school infobox templates into a single infobox for the subunits (i.e., Template:Infobox academic division), with a small handful of added parameters that are specific to the subunits and not needed by the parent university articles (e.g., GRE, LSAT, MCAT, GMAT scores; professional accreditation; bar passage rates; etc.). In fact, this is exactly what was intended to occur when Template:Infobox academic division was created, and was already gradually happening when this TfD was initiated. This has not been mentioned in this TfD, nor do any of the discussion participants, including the nominator, seem to be aware of this.
I also note for the record the substantial out-of-process removal of this template and its replacement with a different template with no prior discussion by the nominator. TfD is supposed to be an open discussion about the future of templates and how the users of such templates may be best served. Out-of-process deletion and replacement of templates pre-empts such good-faith discussions, often to the preclusion of better outcomes. The nominator's concurrent (December 8, 2014; re-opened January 22, 2015) proposed TfD merge of Infobox academic division has now stalled and is being opposed 2:1 for the reasons I mention above, including the somewhat obvious notion that a smaller template, better focused on the needs of university subunits, and excluding the 15 to 20 redundant parameters of template:Infobox university which are unnecessary/undesirable for the articles about the subunits. "Obvious," that is, to those editors who actually work on these articles on a regular basis and understand the higher article maintenance involved in using all-in-one master templates that include many optional parameters that are unnecessary/undesirable for the universities' constituent colleges, schools, institutes, faculties, etc. I would ask the closing administrator to carefully consider these factors when closing this TfD, and those which are closely related and still pending.
The next time I encounter such out-of-process template removals and replacements during a pending TfD, I will (a) revert the removals/replacements, (b) call for an immediate procedural close of the pending TfD for improper and prejudicial conduct intended to bias the outcome of the TfD, and (c) report such conduct to TfD talk, ANI, and/or ArbCom Enforcement, as appropriate. I hope everyone will acknowledge that we need to adhere to basic procedural fairness during pending TfDs, and I am prepared to raise quite a stink to make sure that happens. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replacements are sometimes used as discussion examples, but diffs should, of course, be provided in such cases. This happened months ago, before the talk page discussions. —PC-XT+ 01:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Redundant template, both in usage and form. Let me have a quick stomp on Dirtlawyer's There are significant differences between a university and its various academic subunits argument. Empirically, there are not very many, or even any, significant differences in the template parameters associated with each. And I'm massively unpersuaded by your process fulminations, which read like wikidrama. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Likewise, "I'm massively unpersuaded" by your failure to acknowledge that 36 of the 60 parameters of Template:Infobox university are not required for Template:Infobox academic division, and that Infobox university also fails to include the five or six discipline-specific and/or profession-specific optional parameters that should be included to properly serve colleges of business administration, law, medicine, etc. The articles for constituent colleges and schools would be better served by a template that is tailored for their specific uses -- as would the editors who actually maintain these articles. As for the purported "wikidrama," precious little of that has been generated by me, and you should seek its sources elsewhere. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2015 (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:Bgr 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used in only two articles. Content is ||style="text-align:right;{{#if:{{{1|}}}|color:#000000;background:#{{{1}}};}}"|. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. It's an element template, so even though it is only used in two articles, it is used in half a dozen other pages reasonably and on all of the pages it is used multiple times (hundreds of uses in total). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would a class in a stylesheet not suffice? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • A class in a stylesheet would not suffice because stylesheet classes do not accept parameters. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 06:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why would classes in a stylesheet not suffice? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because you would need one class for each different background colour value. This template can use any valid web colour as its parameter, so we could potentially need 232 classes; this reduces to 224 if the alpha channel be ignored, but it's still a lot. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete, counterproductive when simple wikitable markup will suffice, and is not significantly more in size. Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much shorter than typing it out 100 times in a wikitable and promotes consistency. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 06:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Replacing with a class presupposes that a CSS rule for that class has been or can be defined, either in a style sheet or in the page itself. Moving styles from the inline style= attribute to style sheets is often ideal from a HTML point of view, but in order to do that, a style sheet needs the appropriate rule adding first. See my comments of 01:00, 2 November 2014 at #Hotcold templates for why this is impractical; and as noted above, more than one class is required. Press Freedom Index uses seven values for the parameter (98FB98, CFC, CFF, F9D, FDD, FF6, FFD}, and Global Innovation Index uses five values (ccffcc, ccffff, ff3333, ff9900, ffffcc). Two of these are common, so ten classes would be needed to replace these uses alone. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepish. Having a template to help with background coloring seems useful. Having a template called Bgr that right aligns the text and sets a background color iff a parameter is supplied not so much. We obviously need better CSS handling for mediawiki, but that day is not here yet, and while we wait, we need something to provide this functionality. Depending on how near that future is (but https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Allow_styling_in_templates looks very promising), a road forward could be to make a monster template {{inlinestyle}} that could take named parameters and generate something like (pseudocode) style="{{paramters.map(key:value).join(';')}}". If the above RfC happens soon we don't even need that. But having such a discussion doesn't belong in a single TfD discussion IMO - so for the time being: keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • subst:, and delete or keep as a subst: only template. I was convinced by the eloquent reasoning by myself on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 29#Template:Bg-c. that means, I changed my mind after thinking about it a little longer triggered by that template, I'm not a narcissistic maniac Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and either delete or keep as a subst-only template and don't replace with classes, as this seems an appropriate compromise —PC-XT+ 04:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a convenience for the creation of tables. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:17, 24 November 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) 19:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or at least rename (no clue in the name about what's constant in the template). This kind of syntax mixing looks confusing. Maybe write a template that generates a table given the different column setups or whatever. 195.147.31.104 (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2015 (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:?/meta/shortname 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, now that changes were made to make this obsolete, and there appear to be no objections to the changes. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:?/meta/shortname (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No meaningful content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the meta subpages are mostly used in political infoboxes. They hold information like wikidata, but allow it to be used in multiple pages. This one is probably meant to be used when the political affiliation is unknown, for some reason. —PC-XT+ 07:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not less confused. It's currently untranscluded, so redirecting seems odd to me. It has no content, so subst:'ing is a no-op, and it can't be used for that. Assuming this does have a use, where can I find out more about this 'class' of templates? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Unknown/meta/shortname? Frietjes (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Frietjes —PC-XT+ 07:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and revert this unconstructive edit, which is what made it empty and so do nothing; then partially revert this edit. The template is part of a group used in election boxes, having names like Template:party/meta/shortname (see Category:Political party shortname templates), e.g. Template:British Whig Party/meta/shortname. This particular one is occasionally used when the political party in an election has not yet been found out but is not truly unknown - perhaps reliable sources are lacking - and so a single question mark is used as a placeholder. The template was created soon after this edit - in {{Election box gain with party link}} the |loser= parameter is mandatory. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps if the template has been empty (and unused?) for five years, that's a sign that it's unnecessary? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It has indeed been empty for (almost) five years; but it's likely that the edit which made it empty went completely unnoticed at the time, since the page has just two watchers. As for non-use, it's been unused for less than three days, and certainly wasn't unused at the time that this TFD was raised. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If it was used anywhere in the last (almost) six years, it didn't work. And apparently, nothing really went wrong. I might still not understand what the intention and effect of this template is, but if I understand it correctly, for the last six years everybody was perfectly happy with this template doing nothing at all. It stands to reason that they'll be equally happy with not having this template. It might even be better if it does something, but I can't tell for sure - why didn't anybody fix that earlier doesn't really have an answer on Wikipedia. Changes can go unnoticed for a long time, but if anyone was still actively using this template, surely, they'd have noticed it wasn't doing what they thought it was doing when they inserted it somewhere? And if it wasn't inserted anywhere in the past six years, it's fairly likely nobody will any time soon either, doesn't it? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • So {{Unknown/meta/shortname}} is for those confirmed to be unknown, and this one is for those not yet confirmed as anything? It seems to be something like the difference between null and undefined in some programming languages. Some people see the difference and the reasons behind it clearly, and others wonder why there is one. I can see the point that they are different, and the usage of this one is only temporary, and hard to track, so I'll change my !vote to revert those edits per Redrose64. —PC-XT+ 06:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't help but think that if this template was created in 2008, and changed to do nothing at all in January 2009, whether or not that was the right thing to do, and nobody noticed or cared for that entire time, this template isn't useful at all, and deletion is reasonable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example:
Example Election Box
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Whig gain from ? Swing N/A
Whig gain from Swing N/A
Whig gain from (unknown) Swing N/A
The first row is, of course, the template under consideration. It was originally designed to say "Whig gain from ?" and edited to say "Whig gain from [[?|]]" (The editor may have thought [[?|]] would automagically turn into [[?|?]], but there was no real point to that, and it doesn't.) The second row has no template. (I assume this would be the replacement if this template is deleted, but if not, we can imagine the red link instead of the TfD notice in the first row.) The third row shows the use of {{Unknown/meta/shortname}}, which is the closest template to this one. Though semantically inaccurate for this purpose, it gives an example of how these templates are supposed to look.
The top two now look similar, if the TfD notice is ignored, because they both generate broken code. This shows that deleting the template would be more or less the same as keeping it as is. I probably wouldn't notice the difference or care, because it is only a placeholder. I may think the code just needs to stay broken unless I take the time to investigate all of this. However, now that I have been shown that it doesn't have to be that way, I prefer the original. I wouldn't oppose a move to a name that tells the purpose of the template in English, like {{Placeholder/meta/shortname}}. —PC-XT+ 04:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I attempt to understand this, I ask the closing admin to take my !vote above with a grain of salt - maybe I'm still missing something crucial. Meanwhile, is it correct to say that the intention of the Unknown and the ? is to link to Unknown and to ? respectively? How is that a good idea? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These meta templates are very confusing. The templates only set the displayable text. The link is always to the article that shares the base name of the template, which is usually a political party article title. So, {{Unknown/meta/shortname}} will link to Unknown, regardless of the template content, and {{?/meta/shortname}} will always link to ?.
I suppose Unknown is ok as a general concept, but it isn't specific enough to explain why it is linked from a political infobox. ? is even less related. Linking to Placeholder name, rather than Question mark, may be less confusing, but still not ideal. (Placeholder is a DAB page that lists political placeholders as something totally different, so this name I mentioned in my last reply would be confusing.) If we made specific articles to hold the political usage, the templates should be renamed to match them, however, I'm not sure there are enough reliable sources about either unknown political parties or the lack of reliable sources in political articles, so this seems to be a bit of a paradox. Linking to other namespaces that describe the problem would be discouraged by policy. We are basically stuck with providing all details through the link text, and choosing a generic article title as the base name of the template.
There has been talk of simplifying this system. I would think one meta template that could call one of any number of formatting templates with the political data for that party as hardcoded parameters would be better than multiple meta templates that each hold one piece of data, but some may disagree with that. —PC-XT+ 04:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its hard to understand how our readers might ever derive benfit from links to Unknown (a disambiguation page) or Question mark, from within election results tables. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me a problem is that these templates are currently needed to not break {{Election box gain with party link}}. The solution to that is to fix that template so that loser isn't required, not to keep these. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these hacks should be deleted until the election box templates (and any other templates that use these meta templates) properly handle these edge cases. Otherwise, it would definitely be better than linking to unrelated articles and DAB pages. I still think a redesign of them all would be better than just fixing this problem in all of them. —PC-XT+ 05:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this argument were in heavy use, I could see the point (though I'm still not sure whether or not I'd agree with it), but to keep a currently unused template so that we can start to put links to ? in loser parameters doesn't seem right to me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and fix the political box infrastructure so it doesn't require these. This whole "meta/shortname" business should have been done away with years ago; it's a poorly implemented idea and a maintenance nightmare. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:16, 24 November 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) 19:04, 29 November 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:Silver line edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Silver line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in only one article. Content is style="background: #e5e5e5". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and replace merge with other templates of this type, to a new merged template {{coloured background styling}} with a |colour=silver to activate this. "background" genericizes the name, as the content is usable for things other than lines. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. With care. Currently the only article using this is broken because of this nomination in ways I can't understand. Hence the care. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete per Martijn Hoekstra's argument that style attributes should be written out, if possible —PC-XT+ 05:02, 13 November 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) 18:51, 29 November 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:Bronze line edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bronze line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in only one article. Content is style="background: #eecc99". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 29 October 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) 18:51, 29 November 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:Grey line 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 for proposed change. Delete arguments are probably strongest (so do fix the issues noted) but not even a solid majority. The status quo is strongly opposed so deleting the existing page. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grey line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Content is style="background: #EFEFEF". Used on 192 articles, of which 185 use a redirect from {{Ligne grise}}, whose name will be opaque to most editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 29 October 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) 18:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't understand how usefull can be this template. It's not working currently (probably due to bad edits), so it should be either fixed or deleted.Rpo.castro (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't working because the TfD nomination introduced a newline which breaks the parsing of the Wiki markup for a table cell. This edit should fix it. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, seems widely used and helpful as a translation for fr:modèle:Ligne grise Frietjes (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not subst, and delete. Custom table styling is almost never appropriate. This appears to be used to (a) create table rows which appear like headers, though they're not, and (b) alternate table row colours. (a) is harmful and (b) is simply unnecessary. Alakzi (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see keeping for now to track the usage of the translation and styling, if that is desired. I don't know if all uses are inappropriate, so I hesitate to support bulk removal at this time. I would support deletion if tracking would not be useful, substituting only when appropriate, and otherwise removing. (I struck my previous !vote.) —PC-XT+ 10:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I support deletion after careful orphaning. If the template is used to alternate table row colors, don't subst; this breaks horribly for sortable tables, and departs from standard layout. Faux headers exhibit the same problem, so don't subst for that either, but convert to a real header. If there are other uses (I haven't seen them, but they might exists), it's possible that it is best to keep the markup and subst: it in, but that should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Gold line edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gold line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in only one article. Content is style="background: #fffcaf". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 29 October 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) 18:50, 29 November 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:Bg-c 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 Subst and delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bg-c (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in only six articles. Content is style="background-color: {{{1}}}". Subst: and delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete (after subst:'ing). It's rather clunky; because the style attribute is part of the template invocation, you can't have more than one such templates on an element; you can't have wikitext containing i.e. <div {{Bg-c|grey}} {{center}}>. If we would extract the style attribute we would end up with wikitext looking something like <div style="{{Gg-c|grey}}"> I don't see that improves over <div style="background-color: grey">; it's marginally shorter at the cost of obfuscation and complexity - which is IMO too high a cost. Let's keep things simple. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete per Martijn Hoekstra —PC-XT+ 05:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a convenience for the creation of tables. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about keeping as a subst-only template? —PC-XT+ 10:51, 24 November 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) 18:49, 29 November 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 closed London station 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 London station}} Magioladitis (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox closed London station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to either {{Infobox UK disused station}} or {{Infobox London station}}, into one or other of which the small number of differing parameters should be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 24 October 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) 18:46, 29 November 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 Paris Metro line edit

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Paris Metro line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Limited use (12 lines). Redundant to {{Infobox rail line}} (see Circle line (London Underground), for example). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 24 October 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) 18:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as not entirely redundant, and not a merge discussion —PC-XT+ 08:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Not a merge discussion" is not a reason to keep a template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • To restate my !vote, then, keep, recommending a relist as a merge discussion because there is not enough redundancy for me to say delete at this time —PC-XT+ 00:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not a merge proposal. Plastikspork , why relist a botched TfD thread? -DePiep (talk) 10:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only one editor had commented, and its possible the nom intended deletion rather than merging —PC-XT+ 00:20, 7 December 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 Taiwan station 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 as redundant to {{Infobox station}} Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Taiwan station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox station}}. Could be made a wrapper of that, in the first instance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I originally created the template because the existing {{Infobox station}} was inadequate for displaying geography (Taiwan's district/province/municipality divisions), lines, station numbers, TRA codes, station ridership, rank, and transfer options. -Multivariable (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Multivariable: Inadequate how? Why could this not be addressed by modifications to the more generic template? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Taiwan's district/province/municipality division structure should not be in a station article. We only need a simple address and the all that stuff can be dealt with in those articles where it has relevance. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redundant - To replace this with the generic Infobox would mean adding a lot of parameters and functionality that are just not needed there. Like the GB and London stations, it is better to leave them alone. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Secondarywaltz: Such as? Would these not be useful elsewhere? Would making this template a module of the more generic one satisfy that need? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Pigsonthewing: Aha Andy! Do you mean something like {{Indian railway code}} for TRA info? That would work. I do think that the complex address info is overkill. Do we need one individual parameter for every Taiwan rail line? Just link them or insert the succession boxes into the Infobox. Many stations have simple enough data that they could almost be converted by changing some parameter names. I could analyze this line by line and see what is left, but that might take a few days. What parameters do you think could be used in a generic Infobox? Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:31, 27 October 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) 18:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete as redundant or wrap to try to preserve parameters —PC-XT+ 00:15, 9 December 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 London Tram edit

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox London Tram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Limited use (five tram lines); replace with {{Infobox rail line}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It all depends whether you want to use Template:Infobox tram line for the service or as you suggest, a rail line. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Seems to be doing no harm, why delete it? It's specific to that system. G-13114 (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "harm" is done by creating an additional and unnecessary maintenance overhead; and an additional cognitive burden for editors, who need to know about, and how to use, an extra template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since there are only five tram lines in London that's unlikely to be a major problem, unless more are built, but again, hardly likely to be a big problem. G-13114 (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The maintenance overload is the same, no matter how many times a template is - or is not - transcluded. That there are only five articles on which this template can be used is all the more reason to use something more generic, and equally suitable Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • What exactly is a "maintenance overload"? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Consider, for example, when we created |alt=, or the Image module in Lua, or added microformats. Each infobox had to updated (except those we haven't yet got around to...), separately. The more infoboxes, the more work there is to do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • It seems very small compared to the amount of time that is taken up in finding templates to take to TFD, debating them, and (if the TFD succeeds) making all the necessary changes to articles, the merged-to template, or both. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's open-ended, so effectively immeasurable. You can, of course, reduce the burden of the TfD process by not asking so many questions. ;-) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for now, however I could see rewriting it as a frontend for something then reconsidering. Frietjes (talk) 17:42, 29 November 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) 18:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in case someone wants to wrap it —PC-XT+ 08:46, 1 December 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 Election Campaign 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 on whether to merge or to renominate to merge and merge then. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Election Campaign (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use, despite being created over seven years ago. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, merge with {{Infobox Iranian election campaign}} (four transclusions) and rename the latter? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 24 October 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) 18:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, not clear what would replace it, and no clear merger proposal. Frietjes (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as proposed by Andy. There's no sensible argument imaginable for keeping a single-use parameterised infobox template (noting that {{infobox hydrogen}} etc, are not parameterised). — This, that and the other (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should be formally proposed for merge per nom —PC-XT+ 04:40, 10 December 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 Electoral reform 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. Swarm X 03:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Electoral reform (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use (and that's poor quality). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete after prosification of the content contained in it's single use. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:06, 12 November 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) 18:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment are you proposing to remove the infobox entirely? Frietjes (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is there a suitable merge target? Montanabw(talk) 23:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I look at the only transclusion, I don't think there is a good reason to keep what is there in a template. The entire content of the template should be presented as prose in the article anyway. That's not something desirable to merge in to anything. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • [8] would be an conservative start to prosification, and although that's still way too "listy" due to attempting to disturb the infobox content as little as possible, I think it's already better than how the article is now. If something like that would be done, the template would be orphaned. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can support a change like that (prosify) —PC-XT+ 00:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems fairly pointless. Number 57 12:08, 28 December 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 gunpowder plotter 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. Swarm X 03:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox gunpowder plotter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used on only 14 biographies (where it is redundant to {{Infobox person}}) and one event (where it is redundant to {{Infobox event}}; or possibly {{Infobox civil conflict}}). We have, AFAICT, no other infobox which is used in this fashion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's used only on these biographies because I created it for these biographies, and then only because they're all included in a Featured Topic. Parrot of Doom 21:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • rewrite as frontend for {{infobox person}}, then reconsider if necessary. It seems straightforward that everything in the 'plot' section could be made into a module for {{infobox person}}. Frietjes (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to thank Andy Mabbett for comprehensively wrecking every single article on the Gunpowder Plot in the run-up to Guy Fawkes Night. Nice work! Eric Corbett 13:19, 5 November 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) 04:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete replace with standard infobox. There won't be any new members of this plot, as it occurred centuries ago and any new plotters belong to a new plot, so there is a strictly limited population of potential articles this can be used for. Any front-ending would need to be usable for more than just this particular event. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm tempted to say it needs more discussion, but it should probably be deleted and replaced by the standard templates. —PC-XT+ 06:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no other suitable templates. If this template is deleted I shall simply remove all infoboxes from every related article. Doubtless that will make Mabbett a very happy man (he's only doing this because he and I have argued over Pink Floyd album articles). Parrot of Doom 09:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please cease posting lies about me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Go fuck yourself. Parrot of Doom 22:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Parrot of Doom: If you think there is a problem with Andy's actions then it would be best to take this to dispute resolution. Lashing out with personal attacks is not going to solve anything; in fact, it is likely to escalate the situation, and it will only make you look bad. Feel free to message me on my talk page or by email if you want to talk about it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I can't be bothered, it really isn't important. Just like Mabbett. Parrot of Doom 08:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Mr. Stradivarius: Mr Strad, you forgot to give Eric Corbett this same invitation. They wrote right above the relisting note. (Mabbett gets a free pass, of course). It should be well-published that it is not allowed to criticise Mabbett, because he is free to call people a liar. I assume by DR you mean something like this. A better advise is: don't spend time on a resolution with PigsontheMabbett at all. No admin ever is gonna say anything about Pigsonthewing (proof in case: this thread), we might lose their brilliant constructive contributions. All those editors chased away from threads like this one (average: two per TfD): they sure need a 'warning'. Oh, this just in: sandbox stalking edits [9] by a dick. One more point, Mr. Strad: I find it telling that when you point to DR, you find it necessary to mention emailing. Clearly you're not the only one in this thread who knows DR. -DePiep (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace by standard infoboxes, - only 15 articles, no? It was successfully done for Bruckner's (11) symphonies (example). Instead of this discussion, it could have been done easily, to help editors new to the articles but familiar with standard templates. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 12 November 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) 19:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. Plastikspork, why reentering the discussion that already shows an outcome? Are you gonna reenter as long as it satisfies some specific outcome? By the way, it's getting worse as we speak. (I did rv). -DePiep (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • When making a revert like this, could you please provide a link? There is no TfD notice on this template, so referencing TfD doesn't provide a specific discussion, and none was started on the template talk page. I assume it relates to this discussion, since it is mentioned, above, and there is a similar field in this template, but I don't see corresponding edits to Gunpowder Plot, so it's hard to be sure. More explanation/discussion would be helpful from both you and PotW regarding this. Thanks. —PC-XT+ 00:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no idea what DePiep is talking about. The edit in question had no relation to this nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no idea what DePiep is talking about. Says it, doesn't it? DePiep (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • re PC-XT: I did provide a link. "There is no TfD notice on this template" -Yes, that is exactly the issue. Again: we can not change a non-tagged template from an outside TfD closure. (Such a change should and must be discussed with that receiving template, right?). DePiep (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • This cold confusion, referring to distrust and lack of effective discussion, is frustrating. Andy Mabbett, your explanation was helpful so far as to prompt me to look in your contributions to try to figure it out, but I still don't know why audio and transcription were removed. DePiep, if you provided a link to this discussion, I don't see anything more specific than "TfD you yourself started" (referring to PotW, whom you were reverting) in the edit summaries and nothing on the talk page. I suppose it is currently not too hard to search for "Infobox event" on the main TfD page, though, so I won't quibble. I'm just saying that a link to the log or maybe the name of the section heading would be helpful in locating the discussion. Tagging {{Infobox event}} for this discussion would be unneeded until changes to that template are being considered here. Anyway, this is unrelated to |transcription_name= and this discussion, so we should probably direct further comments on this to Template talk:Infobox event#English name, audio (c/f footage) and transcript. —PC-XT+ 06:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Let's not personalize the issue. 14 people, insufficient. Next thing you know we will have {{9/11 plotters}}, or {{Battle of the Little Bighorn participants}} or whatever. These totally unique infoboxes DO raise the question of how to not make a template that is general so complex that no ordinary user can manage it, but if there are unique parameters, can't a simple "other stuff" parameter be used, perhaps with the potential to be given a name suitable to the sub-group? Montanabw(talk) 23:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Let's not personalize the issue". Yes, great. Is what I wrote earlier here (as you saw). Did not read everything from there. Any discussion content to add? - please condense. DePiep (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, I think that we can keep a template around for a featured topic. I don't think that it requires any maintenance time and I don't see this being 100% replaced by other templates. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Displays the relevant information far more clearly than infobox person, and in a more logical order. Comparing this to this, there's only one winner. Number 57 10:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - Funny thing, I agree with both the keeps and the deletes. I just went through Category:People infobox templates and Category:History and events infobox templates. And while there are similar infoboxes, we really don't seen to have one which has two sections of: top section - info box person demographic stats about the person; bottom section, one or more major events they were involved in or known for. (And really, I think infobox person currently appears to be a bit of a hodgepodge of listed info as far as I can tell.) Would it be possible to genericise this info box so that it would be useful for such things? I agree that for such people related to or involved in a specific historical event this seems to lay things out in a much much more readable way. And our focus, as always, is "easier for the reader", not "easier for us". - jc37 00:38, 17 February 2015 (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:Quotation 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. The discussion was left open for long period and no clear consensus had developed on what action should be taken, and it didn't appear as if that was going to change even if it were left open for another month. I agree that there's a reasonable case for merging and keep in mind it's not a bureaucracy. Andy (or any template editor) is perfectly welcome to be bold and perform the merge themselves and see how it goes. Swarm X 03:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quotation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Quote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Quotation with Template:Quote.
Compare:

This uses Template:Quotation

This uses Template:Quote

Either make the styling switchable, or do away with it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • As you know, the MOS recommends the use of both templates. If you are contemplating making Template:Quote switchable and making Template:Quotation an envelope for it, that would not require discussion at MOS. but I don't think this is what you are suggesting, nor do I think it would be a good idea. Thincat (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see the proposal, above. It quite clearly states "Either make the styling switchable, or do away with it". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your proposal is, I'm sure, clear to you but not to me. For a start I don't know whether "do away with it" refers to the style or the template and I do not know how "do away with it" corresponds to "merging". Anyway, I will not be continuing further with this conversation. Thincat (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although Andy's proposal is syntactically ambiguous, the interpretation "do away with the style" of Template:Quotation seems to mean "make Template:Quotation the same as Template:Quote" and thus reduces the proposal to "do away with the template". Also, I think that the word "or" in the proposal doesn't have to mean that the alternatives are equivalent. As I read the proposal, Andy would be happy to dump Template:Quotation but suggests merging as a way to eliminate the confusion between the template names by making the style choice a clearly understandable switch. --Rich Janis (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And TfD is perfectly capable of proposing solutions not specified by the nom, as is happening below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think a parameter version would be very diffucult to use. Christian75 (talk) 07:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or rename. Per Andy's comment above this one, just putting a <code></code> segment around a {{quote}} transclusion is really not that big of a deal as far as I can see. But if it's really absolutely necessary to keep them as separate templates, and they can't be merged to be switchable, "quotation" should at least be renamed to something like "boxquote" - there's no way for anyone to distinguish between the quote templates a priori right now, and I feel this is needlessly confusing. { } 20:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This uses Template:quote box

  • Comment There's also {{quote box}}, which is much, much more widely used than either of them, and looks more different still (and apparently doesn't work inside bulletted lists, as I discovered writing this comment. I get the impression that there may be technical issues with a merge; the WP:MOS mentions that the choice of one template or another may be driven by how they interact with references. I'm off to sandbox that in my userspace now. --ais523 00:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Deprecate {{quotation}} in favour of {{quote}} in articlespace. OK, so I've had a look at the various suggestions on the MOS, including all three of the templates in question and old-fashioned <blockquote>, and the results are here: User:ais523/quotes. As far as I can tell, all four methods work in every situation envisaged by the Manual of Style. However, this is more ways to format a quotation than would possibly be desirable; there's no obvious reason from the templates to use one over another. We can turn to the Manual of Style itself. The relevant section is MOS:Blockquote (which hasn't significantly changed in ages; here's what it looked like last year), which recommends not using colored backgrounds for quotes. This would imply that {{quote}} should be favoured over {{quotation}}. ({{quote box}} is different enough in usage (it's intended to serve the same purpose as an image) that it should probably be left separate. As far as I can tell, though, there's no reason to use {{quotation}} over {{quote}} in articlespace, and given that we already have rules for a consistent quote appearance, we should probably follow them. {{quotation}} is mentioned once in the MoS, but only as an alternative to italics, which it also disrecommends; this is something of an internal inconsistency. However, there appear to be legitimate uses of {{quotation}} in projectspace (e.g. on Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Arbitration_enforcement_bans), which should probably be retained (perhaps with a less confusing name). So in short, I'd recommend removing {{quotation}} from articles, fixing the WP:MOS to be internally consistent, and renaming {{quotation}} to something obviously more projectspacey (e.g. {{policy quotation}}) for its uses in projectspace. I'll bring this up on WT:MOS to see if the editors there agree with this. --ais523 01:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge with the "box" switch; otherwise, Rename, or Do Nothing. My edit today in Buckingham Palace used Template:Quotation to overcome an apparent bug in Template:Quote. I.e., Template:Quote fails to visibly indent a paragraph when there's an image to the left of that paragraph. Until that bug is fixed, Template:Quotation, or the box option in Template:Quote, provides an important contribution to the visual distinction of a block quote from other text. If a rename is chosen, I'd modify JPG's suggestion and propose "boxedquote". --Rich Janis (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC). Revised --Rich Janis (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We should definitely be looking for cases where one of the templates works, and the other is buggy, in order to resolve the technical issues. I think there are two separate issues here, the technical issues and the appearance issues. Meanwhile, I resolved the inconsistency in the MoS via removing references to {{quotation}}; if you disagree, feel free to revert me and start a conversation on the talk page. --ais523 00:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Move {{quotation}} to a projectspacey name per ais523 ({{wpquote}} would be shorter, {{project quote}} would work, too), and install a namespace detector that throws a big red error if it's used in mainspace. Failing that, fix technical issue and merge {{quotation}} to {{quote}}, per much of the above discussion, with a |box=y parameter (that must be specified manually and is discouraged in Template:Quote/doc), and without going through and swapping in {{quote|box=y|...}} code on extant uses of {{quotation}} in mainspace, just {{quote|...}}. We usually do not need or want a box around a block quotation. Frankly, it's an excuse for editors who favor (encyclopedically inappropriate) news style to use "billboard" call-outs and pull quotes in our articles, which should almost never be done here. The default display should not have a box. It's definitely ridiculously confusing that {{quote}} and {{quotation}} go to markedly different templates; it's like having a {{cite needed}} template that looks nothing like {{citation needed}}. The image-wrapping issue can be fixed by porting code (or the underlying solution in it) from one template to the other. I'm opposed to moving {{quotation}} to a non-projectspacey name like {{boxedquote}} or whatever, except perhaps as a stripped-down call to {{quote|box=y|...}} (but TfD has been showing a trend [that I do not support] toward deleting such short-hand templates of late, so I'm not sure why we'd go the other direction this time). PS: Quotations in italics, while it still mentioned {{quotation}}, indicated that it bollixes citation links (but did does not elaborate further; I would guess the issue has been reported to Template talk:Quotation). Any merging of code should be very well-tested.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC) [substantially revised, 07:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)][reply]
    Let's not kid ourself: it's extremely likely that even with a lengthy and careful conversion campaign, this may lead to unexpected breakage and setbacks. Currently quote is buggy when next to images, and quotation is buggy in indented contexts - the latter by my best guess caused by tidy.php buggyness, and the former I'm not sure of. The process of how we want to do this shouldn't be dependent on what we want to do in this case. Moving to a single quote template might even help mitigate issues such as this one, if they function more similar on a technical level. I'm definitely volunteering to assist in the conversion process though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've looked into the technical issue here (updating User:ais523/quotes; see there for the latest testcases). The situation seems to be that all the quoting techniques (except {{quote box}}, obviously) are losing the gap to their left when next to a left-floated image. This applies to <blockquote>, so it isn't surprising that {{quote}} has the same problem. {{quotation}} is also wrong – it's losing space in the same place that {{quote}} is – but the background and border makes this less noticeable. Also, I've found a case where all three templates fail (inside a list element, with text before and after); in this case, though, the hardcoded <blockquote> still works. With respect to the problem with images, I'm becoming increasingly convinced this is a site CSS issue, and not one that will be easy to fix, rather than a mistake in the actual templates. Ideally, we'd change the CSS on blockquotes rather than on left-floated images (otherwise, we'd likely break a lot of unrelated things). --ais523 12:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I think the only way we can get the gap to be there for floated elements to have the template have an inline-block display property. This would have severe impact if they are on the same line as other text. Something to keep in mind when we start fixing stuff. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{Imagequote2}} apparently resolves this issue. My recent proposal that such functionality be incorporated into {{Quote}}, and the former then be deleted, was rejected. It has only 74 transclusions, and does not use <blockquote>. Some days I wonder why I bother... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baby steps Andy, we're getting there, maybe not today, but we're getting there. Thank you for all the work you're putting in here. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Re: User:Martijn Hoekstra) I have no objection to you (or anyone else trying to get this quotation mess sorted out) adding cases to my testcase page. --ais523 14:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I've been working on the sandbox at {{Quote/Sandbox}} (note uppercase S), and have it working pretty closely to both {{quote}} and {{quotation}} now (except with bugfixes; all the testcases pass now). One thing I've noticed is that merging the templates is awkward from the coding point of view; so much of the styling is different between the articlespace and projectspace version. --ais523 15:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment …and I found a better way to merge them, using a site CSS override (which isn't in place yet). You can add the CSS below to Special:Mypage/monobook.css or Special:Mypage/vector.css for testing; if this seems to be a good idea (and the consensus of the TfD is to merge the templates), I'll try to get this into site CSS. I like this latest version of the template, because it seems to deal with all the known problems with the other templates, and lets us merge the templates into one. (Then we can put a namespace warning if the "box=" parameter is used in mainspace, and have a wrapper that just includes the parameter for projectspace.) --ais523 18:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
blockquote.templatequote.toccolours { padding:1.3em 1.5em 1.5em 1.5em;}
.templatequote.toccolours div.templatequotecite { text-align:right; }
  • Comment We put the above on the testwiki site CSS to make sure it'll work when placed into the site configuration here: Mobile Monobook Vector Hopefully, this should sort out all the technical objections that have been made to date, and we can focus on the policy side of the discussion instead. --ais523 20:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
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) 18:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the switch, using the code at {{Quote/Sandbox}}. It's absolutely pointless to have two templates whose names have similar meaning behave differently. APerson (talk!) 03:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 
  • Comment I read Wikipedia mostly on my phone these days, and with the mobile style sheet the two are very similar but {{quotation}} is obviously inferior, as shown by this screenshot of the example given above: the opening quotation mark overlaps the text. I've been replacing it with {{quote}} wherever I've found it. Hairy Dude (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2015 (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:Bq 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 redirect to template:quote (nac). the custom parameters have been tracked in Category:Template bq using custom parameters, and anything significant has already been added to template:quote, so nothing left to merge. if anything significant pops up we can always add it to template:quote. Frietjes (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fork of {{Quote}}, to which it is redundant (and much less used). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've replaced your reverts of my reverts with manual workarounds to avoid this sort of template fanaticism. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you've unilaterally replaced a template with one with a completely different style, after complaining that my replacements, which used the same style, were undiscussed style changes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Invalid values should be corrected; it's not an argument for deletion or merger.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't demonstrate that at all; the obvious intent was style=color:Blue;. Whether there's a case for using blue in that bit of content is matter for discussion on that page's talk page. The other example is also an argument for using a better font-size value, not a TfD matter. Anyway, my !vote on this is "merge to {{quote}} and redirect", below. I'm simply trying to point out that you sometimes include complaints about content, about template uses in particular cases, that aren't relevant here. They're a form of argument to emotion – look how terrible this is! the sky is falling! – and are not helpful.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support redirect Support merge redirect per WP:CHEAP. "bq" is much easier to type ("uo" or "ou"? yeah you just wasted a couple milliseconds when you could have just typed "bq") and its harmless. Int21h (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that there should be only one template resolving to <blockquote> but it should have an option to add predefined classes, language, etc., but not styles or titles or id, through a wrapper for consistent and accessible styling. The HTML5 proposed recommendation (this version) states:

There is no formal method for indicating the markup in a blockquote is from a quoted source. It is suggested that if the footer or cite elements are included and these elements are also being used within a blockquote to identify citations, the elements from the quoted source could be annotated with metadata to identify their origin, for example by using the class attribute (a defined extensibility mechanism). (w3.org)

Here are two examples of how to use it from that proposed recommendation are: 

<blockquote>
  <p>My favorite book is <cite class="from-source">At Swim-Two-Birds</cite></p>
  <footer>- <cite>Mike[tm]Smith</cite></footer>
</blockquote>

and 

<figure>
 <blockquote>
  <p>The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with.
  It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held
  prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to
  be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true. We have a
  method, and that method helps us to reach not absolute truth, only
  asymptotic approaches to the truth — never there, just closer
  and closer, always finding vast new oceans of undiscovered
  possibilities. Cleverly designed experiments are the key.</p>
 </blockquote>
 <figcaption><cite>Carl Sagan</cite>, in "<cite>Wonder and Skepticism</cite>", from
 the <cite>Skeptical Enquirer</cite> Volume 19, Issue 1 (January-February
 1995)</figcaption>
</figure>

My point is that neither {{Bq}} nor {{Quote}} are rendered in a way that completely support the more current standards. {{quote|phrase|person|source}} has the basics but does not have a language parameter which would help screen reader accessibility with pronunciation or a class parameter which would help with semantics (however they would be used – for example identifying the text as a question or as an answer). —BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're not wrong, but the issues are separate. Also, {{Lang}} can be used inside {{Quote}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, inside the element but not in a simple way as a Wikipedia template parameter that would be used as lang="xxyyzz" attribute of the HTML <blockquote> element. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we routinely made quotations completely in a foreign language, then it would not be difficult to add a lang parameter to {{quote}}. But language markup is principally applied to an an inline element, rather than a block, so having the flexibility to use {{lang}} for short extracts within a large quote is no disadvantage. I'd be inclined to update quote to provide the useful commonly-used features and redirect bq to it. --RexxS (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to {{Quote}} then redirect; it's not a simple redirect case. The {{Bq}} template was written expressly to ease conversion and merging of block quotation templates (that's why it supports as many parameter names of the other templates as possible). See its documentation for the details, including a conversion guide. These features should be merged into {{Quote}} until the templates they aid transition away from no longer exist, then those extra parameter names can be removed (optionally).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:49, 22 October 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) 19:11, 29 November 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:Left Behind Characters 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) 02:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Left Behind Characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Most of these characters have been merged with List of Left Behind characters; by my count, only five on the list still have their own articles. Cerebellum (talk) 16:15, 29 November 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 India university ranking/General 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, general housekeeping. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox India university ranking/General (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox India university ranking/Medical (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox India university ranking/Business (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox India university ranking/Global (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox India university ranking/Engineering (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox India university ranking/Law (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old subpages which are no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 14:15, 29 November 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 Cambridge 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 don't merge. Non-admin closure. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC) BTW, the nominator disputed my close at my talk page, but I declined to change my mind. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Cambridge college (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Oxford college (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Cambridge college with Template:Infobox Oxford college.

Per recent TfD discussions:

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment what's the name of the merged template? I would potentially support merging these with {{infobox residential college}}, but unfortunately (for the second time) this isn't what is being proposed. Frietjes (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. First, in the two earlier discussions, mentioned above, the topic was to delete these two and redirect them into {{Infobox university}} (not into one another). The nominations each missed the notification of merge (1). Also, there was no plan on how & what to merge. No analysis was made about overlap in content, semantics, parameters, etc (2). That lead to the conclusion of keep, twice. Now the nom simple starts a new proposal, indeed a merge (not delete) this time, but into a different target that the earlier TfDs were about (3). So none of the arguments can be reused as a dumb copypaste, just by a link. And again, I notice that the nomination does not mention any consideration for overlap and differences. It is upon the nominator to convince others of usefulness of a merge, it should not be left to others having to guess about intentions and issues (4), even more so while these were explicitly mentioned in the earleir TfD. The nom is omitting this for the nth time in a TfD after being asked for, so I assume this omission is by intention this time (5). Finaly, I am missing the general thought behind this (form of) merge proposal. I still see not what is the greater aim of such proposals that have an association in common only. -DePiep (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The topic of the previous TfDs is irrelevant; this is a new proposal. However, various editors independently suggested merging the two templates, and the closing admin's summary included "There have been many notes along the lines that [...] merging these two into an oxbridge template could be considered. Discussion on that proposal [...] could still be perused". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The topic of the previous TfDs is irrelevant; " - well, the nom linked to them, and states: "per ...". -DePiep (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose seems pointless when the correct action would be to merge them both with {{infobox residential college}}. Frietjes (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I noted above, you're free to make a counter, or additional, proposal. But in the meantime, it's likely that those who opposed merging these templates into {{Infobox university}} would object to that also, and for the same reasons. There's no reason that this merge - which should satisfy their objections - shouldn't proceed; it would not preclude a further merger in future, once more sensible heads prevail. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose. I see no point in this merger. Cambridge has constituent colleges only while Oxford has constituent colleges and halls, thus the proposed merged infobox would not recognize the distinction. In addition, residential college is reductionist since Oxford and Cambridge colleges and halls are far more than residential. One of the Oxford colleges All Souls College, Oxford is not really residential as it has only fellows and no students. Also, calling the infobox Oxbridge colleges is problematic not only because it doesn't include Oxford Halls, but also because the neologism Oxbridge is not well known outside the UK. Jm3106jr (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If "Oxbridge college" is problematic for not including Oxford Halls, then so is "Oxford college". A neologism is not a problem in a template name, since the template name is not seen by readers. The claim "the proposed merged infobox would not recognize the distinction" is baseless. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not baseless. The current 'infobox Oxford college' displays as Colleges and halls of the University of Oxford and the current 'infobox Cambridge college' displays as Colleges of the University of Cambridge. What would the proposed merged 'infobox Oxbridge college' display as? If it displays as Colleges of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge it is inaccurate as it excludes Oxford's Halls. If it displays as Colleges and halls of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge it is inaccurate as Cambridge has no constituent halls. I find this merger without merit as it simply adds unnecessary confusion and complicates rather than simplifies. Jm3106jr (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it is the will of the community, the combined template could be made to display exactly the same texts, depending on whether the subject is part of Oxford or Cambridge University; hence, your claim is baseless. Furthermore, no-one has suggested suing the text "Colleges and halls of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • If that is the case that the combined Oxbridge info box can be made to differentiate the two universities and the respective display text and there is no plan use the two-university text as mentioned above, I withdraw my opposition and stand corrected. However, my opposition stands if the two universities will not be differentiated in the merged Oxbridge info box with the appropriate display text. I also have no objection to the infobox being identified as Oxbridge in this context. Jm3106jr (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • "If that is the case" you write - proves that the proposal is still unclear (one month after nomination). The nom's reply earlier "If it is the will of the community, ..." here says the same. REd flag signals of improper process; just think of what the earlier respondents were talking about (of course, not about a late turned suggestion/allusion). Once again, the responsibility of a crisp proposal is put with the opposers, instead of with the nomination. -DePiep (talk) 09:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (can we get this closed, two months after nom?). Unnecessary change to a perfectly fine status quo plus can we please tone down the increasingly-aggressive arguments? —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2015 (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:ElPozo Murcia FS squad 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 Xota FS. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ElPozo Murcia FS squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Xota FS squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep ElPozo Murcia FS squad, but delete Xota FS squad unless someone is willing to keep it up-to-date. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 29 November 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:Brazil Squad 1996 FIFA Futsal World Championship 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 December 8. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brazil Squad 1996 FIFA Futsal World Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Brazil Squad 1992 FIFA Futsal World Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep for now since they won the championship. Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 29 November 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:Spain Squad 1992 FIFA Futsal World Championship edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spain Squad 1992 FIFA Futsal World Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Spain Squad 1989 FIFA Futsal World Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, didn't win the championship. Frietjes (talk) 14:54, 29 November 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:Italy Squad 2005 UEFA Futsal Championship 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 2003 on 2014 December 8, and delete rest. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Italy Squad 2005 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Italy Squad 2003 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Italy Squad 2001 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Italy Squad 1999 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Italy Squad 1996 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep 2003 for now since they won the championship but delete the rest since they didn't win the championship. Frietjes (talk) 14:54, 29 November 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:Portugal Squad 2000 FIFA Futsal World Championship 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) 23:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portugal Squad 2000 FIFA Futsal World Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Portugal Squad 1999 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, didn't win the championship. Frietjes (talk) 14:52, 29 November 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:Netherlands Squad 2014 UEFA Futsal Championship edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Netherlands Squad 2014 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Netherlands Squad 2005 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Netherlands Squad 2001 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Netherlands Squad 1999 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Netherlands Squad 1996 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, didn't win the championship. Frietjes (talk) 14:52, 29 November 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:Belgium Squad 2003 UEFA Futsal Championship 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) 00:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Belgium Squad 2003 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Belgium Squad 1999 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Belgium Squad 1996 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, didn't win the championship. Frietjes (talk) 14:51, 29 November 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:Croatia Squad 2001 UEFA Futsal Championship 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) 02:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Croatia Squad 2001 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Croatia Squad 2001 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Croatia Squad 1999 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, didn't win the championship. Frietjes (talk) 14:51, 29 November 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:Czech Republic Squad 2003 UEFA Futsal Championship 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) 02:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Czech Republic Squad 2003 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Czech Republic Squad 2001 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, didn't win the championship, and entirely unreadable. Frietjes (talk) 14:49, 29 November 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:Russia Squad 2001 UEFA Futsal Championship 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 2001 and both 1996 squad boxes, relisting the 1999 box. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Russia Squad 2001 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Russia Squad 1999 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Russia Squad 1996 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Russia Squad 1996 FIFA Futsal World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep 1999 UEFA since they won the championship, but weak delete the rest, since they didn't win the championship. Frietjes (talk) 14:47, 29 November 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:Ukraine Squad 2003 UEFA Futsal Championship 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) 00:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ukraine Squad 2003 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ukraine Squad 2001 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ukraine Squad 1996 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete, didn't win the championship (runners-up). Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 29 November 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:Slovenia Squad 2010 UEFA Futsal Championship 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) 02:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Slovenia Squad 2010 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Slovenia Squad 2003 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, didn't win the championship. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 29 November 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:Iran Squad 1996 FIFA Futsal World Championship 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 December 8. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:12, 8 December 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:Ukrainian Women's Futsal Premiere League teamlist 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 Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ukrainian Women's Futsal Premiere League teamlist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:21, 29 November 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:Extra-Liga teamlist edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Extra-Liga teamlist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:20, 29 November 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:Futsal in Turkey 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) 22:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Futsal in Turkey (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Switzerland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Slovakia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Serbia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Romania (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Papua New Guinea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Norway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Kazakhstan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Japan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Hungary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Georgia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Finland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Austria (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Denmark (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in the Czech Republic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Croatia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Bulgaria (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Bosnia and Herzegovina (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Belarus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Armenia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Futsal in Fiji (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep for now, part of a series. several could have more blue links if team links are added from the various country-specific league templates. Frietjes (talk) 14:40, 29 November 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:Pan American Games Futsal 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) 22:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pan American Games Futsal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:13, 29 November 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:2010–11 Nemzeti Bajnokság I (men's futsal) teamlist edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010–11 Nemzeti Bajnokság I (men's futsal) teamlist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 10:59, 29 November 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:Georgian Futsal Super League edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Georgian Futsal Super League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 10:57, 29 November 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:Futsal at the Southeast Asian 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Futsal at the Southeast Asian Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 10:56, 29 November 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:Salisbury City F.C. managers 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 to delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Salisbury City F.C. managers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hayes F.C. managers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Farsley Celtic A.F.C. managers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Eastbourne Borough F.C. managers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Antigua Barracuda FC managers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bishop Auckland F.C. managers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep all have enough links and are useful for navigation at the moment. Frietjes (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please recheck. All templates have links to only two or three managers. No need for navigation whatsoever between such a small list of people in such circumstances. Fenix down (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    rechecked and they all have two or more blue links, and are part of a series. Frietjes (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Frietjes; each template has at least two wikilinks, meaning they have at least some practical value. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:13, 29 November 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 T&W Metro station edit

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

The result of the discussion was keep for now. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox T&W Metro station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant. Only 60 transclusions. Could be replaced by, merged into, or made a module of, {{Infobox GB station}}, or even {{Infobox station}}. Many of these stations are former mainline stations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 60 transclusions is not a small number. The template has several parameters specific to the T&W Metro which are not present in either of the two suggested replacements. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it does. There are |original= |pregroup= |postgroup= |years= |events= and eight |yearsn= |eventsn= pairs, plus |conv= and |metrosince=. It could do with tidying up so that it is built around {{infobox}}, something along the lines of what I did for Infobox Manchester Metrolink station. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reason for the template's creation was that no other template had the relevant parameters. DrFrench (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DrFrench: The proposal at hand is to merge those parameters into one of the more generic templates, or to convert it for use as a module of one of them. Would you care to address that, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sixty is a small number. The reason, it seems, for all these parameters specific to the T&W Metro is poor template design. Whereas the generic template has a parameter to specify the line, this one has a different parameter for each line. It cannot be an impossible task to have {{Infobox station}} handle this if we just rethink how this is to be done. Jimp 10:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not all stations are on a single line: twelve, such as Pelaw, are on two lines, see network map. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: maybe not "poor template design", but merely old template design. Back in 2007 when this template was devised, we didn't have the variety of generic templates available with code to create the kind of variations/optional content that was required, so we ended up with lots of different templates for specific purposes such as this that wouldn't necessarily be required these days. Rather than delete this template, we should find a way to make something like {{Infobox station}} display the appropriate content, so that this one becomes redundant. --RFBailey (talk) 19:47, 29 October 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisted by request. My original close was no consensus, and I don't think there is, but merge suggestions have not been adequately addressed, and consensus may still be reached. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Before anything is merged it needs to be shown that a generic template does what is required here, not that it merely could. Everything above is basically "this template has features not supported by the generic template" vs "but the generic template has the potential to support those features", which hasn't got anywhere and wont get anywhere. So I suggest that those in favour of merging do the work so that this template either is redundant or it is clear that the generic template can't handle these specific uses. No arguments have been made against the concept of merging, so this should not be controversial. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Might I suggest that if any merging be done, it should be done under the guidance of WikiProject Trains and its associates, who should appreciate the subtleties of the British railway system. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as proposed by Andy. (This is in agreement with the "delete" of Jimp). — This, that and the other (talk) 06:54, 24 November 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) 01:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for now per RedRose64, but please do rewrite it to use {{infobox}} and/or as a frontend for {{infobox station}}. note that merge really isn't an option here since it's not a merger discussion. Frietjes (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I see no reason to delete it and replace it with a broader box that would not suit the specific system as well. The T&W infobox is also well made and looks smart on the page. Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:32, 29 November 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.

University ranking 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Australian university ranking (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (2 transclusions)
Template:Infobox Canadian university rankings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (43 transclusions)
Template:Infobox India university ranking (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (82 transclusions)
Template:Infobox Japanese university ranking (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (19 transclusions)
Template:Infobox UK university rankings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (101 transclusions)
Template:Infobox US university ranking (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (277 transclusions)
Template:Infobox business school rankings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (67 transclusions)
Template:Infobox technical university ranking (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (5 transclusions)
Template:Infobox world university ranking (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (60 transclusions)

Propose merging all into Template:Infobox world university ranking; perhaps rename to {{Infobox university ranking}}; perhapas make a module of {{Infobox University}}.
No need for separate templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merging unless a convincing argument is made why having separate templates is problematic or undesirable; if there is already an essay or discussion on the desirability of large, complex metatemplates over smaller, simpler templates then please point me to it. Without such an argument, it seems like unnecessary and needless busywork merge templates simply because it's technically feasible. ElKevbo (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having redundant templates creates an increased maintenance overhead. Merging them means that future changes only have to be made once. We have precedence, with hundreds of such redundancies having been resolved by merger and or deletion (or redirect) over the past few years. See also Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link; I suspected something like that might already exist. I'm afraid that I don't completely agree with it.
On a more specific note, if these templates are merged then the proposed merger to "Infobox world university ranking" is inappropriate because many of these rankings are not world rankings but national or regional. A more generic "university rankings" would seem more appropriate and accurate. I also request that if these templates are merged then specific examples for the most used defunct templates be explicitly provided in the documentation to help editors since many of the parameters of the new template would only apply to institutions in specific countries, especially those specific to U.S. institutions. It would help editors cut through the chaff. ElKevbo (talk) 19:55, 21 November 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) 01:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose for now. I started a demonstration merger of some of them into {{infobox university rankings}}, and will work on that further, but until there is some sense of the scale and structure of a merged template, it's really hard to say whether the upkeep will be more or less difficult. I will say that we should definitely merge some of them since there is substantial overlap between Australia and Canadian rankings. I imagine this will be the case for the UK and possibly for the US. The real danger is that this overlap becomes out-of-sync with one using 2013 rankings and the other using 2014 rankings from the same source. Frietjes (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. I'm largely supportive of a merger for the sake of standardization of the university articles. However, noting the large variety of national-based rankings, it seems to be an impossible task to create an all-encompassing template. As opposed to completely merging these templates, perhaps it would be more appropriate to only take the international rankings into the proposed template (i.e. the prevalent ones such as QS, ARWU, Times, Leiden, Newsweek, etc.), while leaving the present national templates for national-based rankings. This seems to achieve the interests of both opposed and for the merger. The national rankings are not excluded from articles (as these rankings still exist in their respective national templates), while Wikipedia also achieves a semblance of uniformity amongst its post-secondary article (through a standard international ranking template). Leventio (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose given that each of these countries has a distinct set of national league tables, merging would be messy. Keep things clean-cut and simple by keeping these templates seperate.Uhooep (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Publications that furnish rankings vary widely in their coverage of specific graduate fields, both in regard to methodology, scope and the extent of due diligence conducted. It simply would not make sense to converge everything in hopes of attaining some marginal benefit, if any. It is also likely to cause unnecessary upkeep and headaches, as many people have noted already. Newtonian7 18:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newtonian7 (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose. Omnibus (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. - In view of there being national rankings in most of these countries a merge wouldn't work from a practical perspective, although the goal of standarisation is good in theory.86.173.61.22 (talk) 15:13, 6 December 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:Welcome-anon-border 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 to a single template with no "swappable" style or content. The exact procedure is open to anyone performing the merge, but care must be taken that Twinkle doesn't break. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Welcome-anon-border (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Welcome-anon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Welcome-anon-border with Template:Welcome-anon.
Very similar. The bordered version has clearer language. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if merged, all the bullet points missing from the bordered version should be added, and a switch to turn on/off the border should be available. {{Welcome-anon-noborder}} non-bordered template name should be an intermediate subst wrapper template that turns the border off, the resultant merge should be at {{Welcome-anon}}, and {{Welcome-anon-border}} should also be a wrapper that turns the border on (or whichever way is decided to be default, one being a redirect, the other being a wrapper) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would rather defeat the point of merging; resulting in no reduction to the confusingly large number of options available in tools such as Twinkle. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The code would be consolidated into one location (which I thought would be the purpose of merging), while only subst wrapper templates or redirects would occupy other locations. The TW user would be able to explicitly pick a bordered or unbordered version. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why would we need two different presentations of the same content? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why have more than one welcome template at all? Personal preference of the welcomer. We have many different welcoming templates that are for standard welcoming, so why not allow the welcomer to choose if they want to box it or not? -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 09:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your question is a reductio ad absurdum fallacy. Maintaining separate templates for individuals' stylistic preferences is WP:BIKESHEDing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • A merger will consolidate the code. Wrappers and redirects are only helpful shortcuts. Optional presentation in the consolidated code is simple. If we consolidate the code without options on presentation then it should not be boxed because the box will swallow the TOC if the welcome message is the first item on the talk page and additional items appear prompting the TOC to appear. Thus the default presentation should be boxless. If we're looking to it from an Twinkle point of view, the redirects/wrappers ease use because they specify what kind of presentation is available. If you want to reduce Twinkle congestion, then you should really be nominating both templates for deletion instead of merger, since there are many other welcoming templates around. As it is, you are nominating these for merger, so I still don't see why we shouldn't have these, as you're not reducing the clutter by much, and clarity of naming with the redirects/wrappers is a better option. If you want to reduce clutter, then deleting both these templates is the better option because of the many other welcoming templates around. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 08:26, 25 November 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) 01:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge only if this is a proposal to merge the functionality in a way that won't break Twinkle. Frietjes (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once the merge is complete, one of the templates should be redirected to the other, or the content of one template replaced with a {{{|safesubst:}}}'d transclusion of the other template. That would prevent Twinkle from inserting garbage markup in the short term. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, combining the best parts of both templates. I find {{welcome-anon}} somewhat verbose, so I would be happy to see its content more or less entirely replaced with that of {{welcome-anon-border}} (minus the border). However, the exact way in which the content is merged is up to the person carrying out the merge. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge without border, improving the wording, per This, that and the other —PC-XT+ 01:36, 9 December 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_November_29&oldid=1179466383"