Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 February 25

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 24 February 26 >

February 25 edit

Article Feedback Tool 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).

The result of the discussion was Keep, but remove any uses from the mainspace. ~ RobTalk 15:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool: "AFT5 was removed from all Wikimedia wikis on March 3, 2014." Therefore, no need for these templates to be left on pages. See Category:Wikipedia feedback pages for pages that use it and see wasted posts made there in the last 30 days. Anything related to AFT is wasting time of any newbie who thinks it is still used. There are probably more useless pages related to AFT if anyone wants to weed them out. Rgrds. --64.85.216.192 (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems these should be removed from articles, (orphaned,) and maybe moved to one or more subpages of Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool and marked historical? —PC-XT+ 03:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep out of mainspace per SMcCandlish —PC-XT+ 11:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has nothing to do with the Article Feedback Tool; it's a separate wiki-based feedback system. I don't have any opinion on the templates, but the nomination is wrong. — This, that and the other (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is presently being used at places like Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. As long as it's documented as only being for use outside of mainspace, it seems to serve a function. I'm skeptical of anything that is an "alternative talk page", but this actually seems to exist for polling on specific questions ("Is this new feature of our project useful?", etc.) to get quick feedback from users of a resource here, without bothering the community with RfCs.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:18, 1 March 2016 (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).

Template:Bassets 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).

The result of the discussion was delete; no opposition. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion. All dogs covered in this template are already covered in Template:Hounds, Template:Pastoral dogs or Template:Terriers along with their national breed templates (Template:British dogs, Template:French dogs and Template:German dogs etc). Cavalryman V31 (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This nomination did not propose any action. Thincat (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, added proposed action above. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2016 (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).

Template:Swedish far-right 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).

The result of the discussion was keep. BethNaught (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion - Far right politicians and parties of sweden, but it includes nazis too. I think its really wrong - some kind of guilty by association. (Alternatively it could be renamed to nazism in Sweden (e.g. remove everything but the nazis)) Christian75 (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep This template is about far-right, ie racist and nazi politics. These parties are to a large extent associated with each other and often share members and history. This proposal is based either on a misunderstanding, or possibly a desire to whitewash the history of some of these groups. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a useful navigation device for related groups and individuals in Sweden. It is not guilt by association, since these groups are connected, although there is an attempt for the far right today to distance itself from the pre-1945 far right. The Sweden Democrats for example banned the wearing of Nazi uniforms by its members in 1996, but the group's origins can be traced back to the pre-war National League of Sweden which was pro-Nazi. TFD (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2016 (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).

Template:Honda international 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).

The result of the discussion was relist at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 29. ~ RobTalk 19:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Honda international timeline with Template:Modern Honda vehicles.
Redundant template, the latter has covered more models. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:31, 25 February 2016 (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).

Template:2016 UCI World Championships 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).

The result of the discussion was don't merge. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:2016 UCI World Championships with Template:World championships in 2016.
The Cycling template is redundant with the other one with all world championships. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • sounds reasonable. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there are many world championships in any year, the proposed target is missing many of them. Any comprehensive footer would be very large and unfocused. Further the proposed target even currently excludes world club championships, so isn't even meant to be comprehensive. At best, each sanctioning body should have a set index listing all their championships per year (such as creating one for 2016 UCI World Championships) and that should be what "Template:World championships in 2016" navigates between, and not individual championships unless the sanctioning body only sanctions one championship. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's clear that viewers of the UCI World Championship subpages would want to navigate to other UCI World Championship subpages, but it's not clear at all that someone looking at cycling world championship pages would care about other sport world championships. More importantly, these templates don't serve the same purpose. One navigates to other sports, while the other navigates among subpages of a single event. ~ RobTalk 15:41, 18 March 2016 (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).

Template:2015 UCI World Championships 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).

The result of the discussion was don't merge. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:2015 UCI World Championships with Template:World championships in 2015.
The Cycling template is redundant with the other one with all world championships. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • sounds reasonable. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there are many world championships in any year, the proposed target is missing many of them. Any comprehensive footer would be very large and unfocused. Further the proposed target even currently excludes world club championships, so isn't even meant to be comprehensive. At best, each sanctioning body should have a set index listing all their championships per year (such as the one for 2015 UCI World Championships) and that should be what "Template:World championships in 2015" navigates between, and not individual championships unless the sanctioning body only sanctions one championship -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's clear that viewers of the UCI World Championship subpages would want to navigate to other UCI World Championship subpages, but it's not clear at all that someone looking at cycling world championship pages would care about other sport world championships. More importantly, these templates don't serve the same purpose. One navigates to other sports, while the other navigates among subpages of a single event. ~ RobTalk 15:41, 18 March 2016 (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).

Template:2014 UCI World Championships 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).

The result of the discussion was don't merge. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:2014 UCI World Championships with Template:World championships in 2014.
The Cycling template is redundant with the other one with all world championships. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • sounds reasonable. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there are many world championships in any year, the proposed target is missing most of them. Any comprehensive footer would be very large and unfocused. Further the proposed target even currently excludes world club championships, so isn't even meant to be comprehensive. At best, each sanctioning body should have a set index listing all their championships per year (such as creating one for 2014 UCI World Championships) and that should be what "Template:World championships in 2014" navigates between, and not individual championships unless the sanctioning body only sanctions one championship. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
70.51.46.39, The footer will not become too larger. See for instance the 2016 footer Template:World championships in 2016 that includes almost all World Championships and can easily expanded with more, without becoming unfocused. Your 2nd point, cycling doesn't have club world championships. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 12:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That 2016 template most definitely does not contain everything There are many world championships missing from that template. And it specifically excludes several world championships, so is a poor use of the pagename. Club championships exists in several sports, the target templates exclude them, which is not the same as all world championships, since they are excluded for seemingly arbitrariness. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
70.51.46.39 can you give the many names of the world championships that are missing in the templates? Besides of that, adding the club world championships to that template is another discussion and should not be done here. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 16:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The most famous world championship in the world is a club and individual championship, the Formula One World Championship which is completely missing from the template, as is the MotoGP World Championship. WJHC is also missing from that template. There are a multitude of world championships in the vein of WJHC that are missing from all these year templates. The year templates should not link to individual championships, but instead should link to topic area per year lists. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So this is not a reason not to merge the templates: seperate templates for junior and club world championships can be made and the motor world championship can be added to the template.What you want is a whole (unnessary) new structure. What you can do is propose a new template, but that is off-topic for this discussion. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 07:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Formula One driver's championship is also an individual title that is not won by the team. As I said, the separation of the club championships makes no sense with a template under this title. And similarly for senior, junior, etc, since you already want to add disabled athletes, why single out oldtimers and the young? And we still are missing individual non-old non-young non-disabled world championships from that template. Further we have {{UCI World Championships}} -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Junior or Senior championships are separate events, and are as such already singled out and not by us. Having a "Junior world championships", a "Senior world championships" and a "World championships" template make perfect sense. That said I have no opinion on the merging, I think the World Championships template needs to be expanded first, to see how big it is. If it gets too big it makes sense to "spread out" over many templates. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Seniors and Juniors and Club ones are still world championships, there is no reason for a template called "World Championships" to exclude any of them if it is being used to list all "World Championships" instead of listing navigation pages to world championships (or if the sport/sanctioning body only has one, that particular one) If this template is meant to exclude them because tournaments have age restrictions (and several do have minimums) then the template should not be called "World Championships" without restriction, it should add a term to it to indicate it isn't clubs or the young, etc. like Template:2016 adult individual competitor world championships or somesuch, and leave "2016 world championships" for general navigation for all world championships (as I have already said for what it should be used for, sports/sanctioning body based navigation pages) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's clear that viewers of the UCI World Championship subpages would want to navigate to other UCI World Championship subpages, but it's not clear at all that someone looking at cycling world championship pages would care about other sport world championships. More importantly, these templates don't serve the same purpose. One navigates to other sports, while the other navigates among subpages of a single event. ~ RobTalk 15:41, 18 March 2016 (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).

Template:State leaders by year 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).

The result of the discussion was keep in favor of merging the linked articles. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template is ridiculously long; should rather be split between centuries, instead (as per Tavix). --Neve–selbert 07:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss my merge idea at Talk:List of state leaders in the 1st century. tahc chat 22:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since nobody seemed to discuss the topic there: I don't see the point of having these lists per year. Very few state leaders sit just a year or less, so most of these lists are just redundant information. It could easily be merged into lists per decade. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve the articles. This problem is caused by the horrible proliferation of articles for every year in history (even well into BC!) when state leaders don't actually change too much before 1800ish. If the articles were cut down to centuries up to 1800 and then decades thereafter, this would be a useful navbox. The purpose of the navbox - to navigate chronologically between state leader lists - is clearly useful. There's no reason to start a navbox from scratch in the future after these articles are fixed. I'll start working on some of the worst offenders (BC). ~ RobTalk 15:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge the articles per Rob (at least for now). I agree that it's a little ridiculous to have a list of world leaders for every year before 1800 or so. Once the merging is complete, it's possible that this template may still need splitting, but I'd like to hold off on that for now. -- Tavix (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • After the merges, we may want to look at having collapsible sections of the navbox. For instance, if we decide to keep yearly articles from 1800 forward (which I think excessive, but as a hypothetical), we could list all yearly articles for the 19th century but collapse the section by default so it doesn't take up an absurd amount of space. ~ RobTalk 17:24, 21 March 2016 (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).

Template:Weather box/quick 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).

The result of the discussion was userfy to User:Wikid77/Weather box quick. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused sandbox/fork of template:weather box. should be moved to userspace or deleted. Frietjes (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2016 (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).

Template:Better image needed 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).

The result of the discussion was Relisting here. ~ RobTalk 02:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that this template was created the day before the TFD nomination was made. Unused, yes, but for a brand-new template, that shouldn't be the criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this can be accomplished with {{Cleanup-image}} specifying better quality -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unused/redundant —PC-XT+ 08:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm retracting my !vote to allow it to develop, per below suggestion —PC-XT+ 11:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Specific use case (although it could be updated to actually use the correct style of message). ViperSnake151  Talk  03:06, 29 February 2016 (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).

Template:Corruption in India 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).

The result of the discussion was delete; no opposition. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might wonder at this nomination, because it seems at first to be an entirely reasonable topic. However, if you dig a little deeper, you find that a) the main article covers little or none of the subjects in the template, b) the list of scandals and involved individuals is incredibly arbitrary and ad hoc, with no systematic inclusion criteria, and c) the creator and the other major editor have both been indeffed for socking, which strongly suggests that maintaining NPOV was not the highest priority of the folks who created this. Also see WP:TNT; this might be a legitimate topic, but if we need a navbox about it, we need to start over. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2016 (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).

Template:Infobox monastery 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).

The result of the discussion was Keep. Several of the keep rationales are unconvincing (rewrite as wrapper first, not all religious buildings are monasteries, etc), but valid concerns over whether the monastery parameters can be covered by Infobox religious building have been raised. In this case, rewriting as a wrapper first may help in a future TfD. If it were shown that these can easily be merged, then there would be no valid reason to keep, at least not based on what was argued here. ~ RobTalk 02:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox monastery with Template:Infobox religious building.
Why have two separate templates for the same thing. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Monasteries are not just buildings but are comprised of religious communities of people. Daniel the Monk (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Parameters are quite similar. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Similar but different, monasteries have chains of authority as well as organic and legal ties to other monasteries which churches don't. Daniel the Monk (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If they are not spoilt, don't fix them. 175.156.123.71 (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • rewrite as a wrapper then reconsider. Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not the same thing, a religious building Religious building is not necessarily a Monastery Monastery. A religious building is usually open to the public as a place of worship, or associated to some religious purpose. For instance, a Quaker hall is a religious building and is not in any way a monastery, similarly a synagogue, mosque. A monastery (and a Priory) is not the same as it is has religious in residence, thus taking it away from the description of 'religious building' moreover, it is usually home to a community with several buildings at their disposal - a place of worship, domestic and workplaces.

Religious buildings are just that, and the plain English meaning is that any building owned by a religion, is therefore a religious building, irrespective of its use. Monasteries have specific meanings and merging with religious building would inevitable cause confusion; religious foundations for charitable uses (e.g. free meals), hospitals provided by religions, Universities provided by religions, schools provided by religions, all of which could be denoted as religious buildings, and currently cannot be confused as a monastery. See also chapel of ease Chapel of ease which is a religious building and not a monastery.

This is not suitable for encyclopedic categorization, OPPOSE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannis baptistae (talk • contribs) 11:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose These aren't synonyms, and the important information about monasteries isn't covered adequately in the religious building infobox, such as which order it belongs to, etc. RichG78 (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Monasteries are more than a just a unique type of religious building. They have political, social, and economic aspects. Mannanan51 (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2016 (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).

Template:Infobox Hindu leader 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).

The result of the discussion was Keep. ~ RobTalk 02:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Hindu leader with Template:Infobox religious biography.
No need for a separate infobox. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The wrappers are not identical. One has "guru" for example, the other doesn't. I see no harm in keeping what is not broken. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Guru means Teacher / Āchārya only. We can add the term if required. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Capankajsmilyo: Indeed. I know. But the purpose of this and other templates is to ease navigation, distill information or make contribution from various wikipedia contributors easier, faster. You need to justify the benefit of deleting/merging so many templates. What is motivating you in proposing these template-merger-proposals? what is the harm in keeping templates that are not broken, which have been tailored to regional users by other wikipedia contributors, and which are in wide use? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comment: Studying the tailored template further, I note that some of the items such as background color are pre-filled in it, which is time saving and useful. Merging/deleting the old template may increase work load and make contributing to wikipedia more cumbersome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would have agreed to you if I had not seen {{Infobox officeholder}} or {{Infobox deity}} before. I wonder why all these templates have been merged to just one, if your argument is acceptable. Shouldn't they exist as separate ones? The logic behind my proposal is the same as used while merging all those templates. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: The issue of regionalisation / customisation / work load can be very well addressed with the documentation as maintained in {{Infobox deity}} -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 20:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Capankajsmilyo: Documentation helps, but it adds work, and does not reduce work or eliminate unnecessary repetition of work. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2016 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_25&oldid=1084289519"