Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 21

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< September 20 September 22 >

September 21 edit

Template:FireEye, Inc. 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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of the FireEye-specific links ("products") are just sections in the main FireEye page.

"Key People" would be useful if any of them had Wikipedia pages. "Investors" could be covered in an infobox (or in prose, as it already is) LFaraone 15:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No useful navigation. A template with repeated links to one relevant article. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough relevant links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This appears to be an attempt to shoehorn an article into a template, and I can't realistically see a beneficial use for it to be placed on any other article than FireEye. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, provides no useful bidirectional navigation. Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete VarunFEB2003 13:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; it's practically a duplication of the TOC for that article. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:31, 26 September 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:NewsRadio 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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation Rob Sinden (talk) 13:29, 21 September 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 academic 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 do not merge --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox academic with Template:Infobox scientist.
Largely overlapping. Many scientist are also academics & vice versa. Examples in the documentation of {{Infobox academic}} include "discipline = Physicist" and "Academic discipline - Sub-atomic research", while {{Infobox scientist}} has various parameters for the subject's students. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support A side-by-side read of the templates' parameters shows a great deal of overlap, with only a couple of specialist parameters currently in Template:Infobox scientist but not Template:Infobox academic (namely botanical and zoological author abbreviations). As an aside, Template:Infobox academic is also missing Citizenship (alongside Nationality and Residence), so this may need including. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Academic - would support merge into academic - as this is the more inclusive term. i.e most scientists are some kind of academic, however large numbers of academics are not scientists.:: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Nothing else to add. Good luck with the merge!--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, at least for historical scientists. It's not the case that historically scientists were academics. I've just been copy-editing Niklas Westring, for example. He was a customs officer, with an amateur interest in zoology. James Eustace Bagnall was a noted botanist, but couldn't be described as an academic. Were John Ray, Gilbert White, Erasmus Darwin or even Charles Darwin academics? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Academic. I think that it would be fine to merge into the more inclusive term, just so long as all of the parameters from both templates are preserved. As for historical scientists, the name of the template does not display on the page, so there is no problem with appearing to label them as academics, and a proper merge will preserve all needed parameters. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as they're almost duplicates. As for what would be the most inclusive name, of course it doesn't matter too much since infoboxes are not categories, but I'd suggest {{Infobox scholar}}, which encompasses scientists and non-scientists, professionals and amateurs, etc. Joe Roe (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that merging under the title "Infobox scholar" is much better than merging under the title "Infobox academic". Titles do matter, even if redirects are provided, since they convey information as to purpose. Finding that "Infobox scientist" redirects to "Infobox academic" would be misleading to many editors, particularly new users of the infobox. Template names act as documentation in wikitext. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scholar. I support Joe Roe's point of view: every academic is (or should be) a scholar/scientist, but not vice-versa. Summing up I agree with the merger, but I think the name "scientist" should be preserved or the name "scholar" should be adopted as more general and descriptive ones.Daniele.tampieri (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • One way of "merging" while preserving the name "scientist" as you suggest would be to have a "/core" template called by both {{Infobox scientist}}, {{Infobox academic}} and perhaps {{Infobox scholar}}. This would met the requirement of reducing redundancy and thus easing maintenance, while allowing for the possibility of a few parameters being specific to one role or the other. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • This would have us maintaining four templates, rather than the current two (plus one redirect). What would be the benefit of this additional maintenance burden? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There are differences between academics and scientists; while many scientists are also academics, most academics are not scientists. There are separate infoboxes for philosophers, economists, engineers etc, but they can also be academics. Scientists do a wide range of jobs (from working for the government to medical companies to being independent). One could suggest that the infoboxes for classical composers and playwrights could be merged under writer but there are definite differences between the two which warrant separate infoboxes. I say that it is a good idea to have these different infoboxes and to keep the academic infobox for those individuals involved mainly in academia/university work. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I think the problem is the name of the "superinfobox(es)". We kinda know the subtle differences, but there is mainly a technical perspective. If you look on wikidata many languages just massively use one or the other with a clear overlap. Maintenance requires flexible infoboxes when possible. An infobox that unifies "everyone that has produced scientific or academic work" is still a reasonable goal. My advice: let's stop here and open a general discussion, with all the possible minor infoboxes. Maybe even on wikidata with all the other languages. It would be long and boring, but we might actually produce something robust out of it.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As above, much WP:IAR would be needed to put Darwin in an "academic" infobox. In general, make-work proposals without a clearly defined expected benefit are undesirable. One example where different templates is useful is that "religion" was removed from the scientist infobox to avoid pointless arguments about whether the field specifies the denomination of the school attended by the scientist, or whether it should indicate something more central to their work or life. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No "Ignore All Rules" would be required. And, if an editor currently wishes to include the religion of scientist, they can simply use {{Infobox academic}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. The templates are highly overlapping. A scientist is by definition an academic; academic is simply a broader term which also covers scholars in other disciplines than natural sciences/medicine. (In many other languages than English the term for scientist would refer to any scientist or scholar regardless of discipline). --Bjerrebæk (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. The subjects overlap almost entirely. While not all scientists are academics, there is nothing stopping us using "Infobox scientist" as a redirect for those cases. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 06:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are significant differences between academics and scientists; some scientists are not academics and many academics are not scientists. Duncan.Hull (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are some scientists who are not working in an academe but are doing purely research in non academic institutions through out their lives. Their only involvement with the academe are being alumni of such academic institutions or resource speakers but they donot directly contribute to the prestige of the institution as an academician. Academician may be a great President, Chancellor Vice Chancellors ,, etc and some of them are not involved in outstanding pioneering or one of a kind research as a scientist but mostly excellence in multi varied managerial work.112.198.99.58 (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sorry for being clueless, but what are the savings of having one template less at hands? Is this a property heavily used in searching? Purgy (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a good question, and I used to wonder about the same thing. The answer is that, from time to time, Wikipedia decides to update or modernize how stuff appears on the page. The more templates there are, the more templates need a person to fix them in parallel with the changes. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Duncan.Hull, Johnuniq and others. Anyway, where's the gain? Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think one benefit is reducing the maintenance load. For example, I've often been frustrated that {{Infobox academic}} still doesn't have templatedata, which amongst other things means it can't be used easily in the Visual Editor. Somebody did the work for {{Infobox scientist}}, but because we have two almost identical infoboxes to support a subtle semantic distinction, it has to be duplicated. Similarly, if they are ever migrated to wikidata, the same work will have to be done twice, etc. etc. Joe Roe (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, reducing maintenance and creating greater modularity are good goals, and doubtless why Andy Mabbett proposed the merger. But when two categories are conceptually distinct, like academics and scientists, a full merger would be a step too far, which is why I suggested instead factoring out the common core into an auxiliary template – a standard move in cases like these. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep, I think that's an excellent solution. Joe Roe (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • If we don't merge them (my preferred outcome), we could reduce both of these templates to small modules - their unique parameters only - to be used in {{Infobox person}}. I think ether would be considerable work to convert existing transclusions though. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responses Whichever name is chosen for the merged template the other would redirect to it. Claims such as "there are significant differences between academics and scientists" are lacking substance if they do not include a reason why separate templates are needed; or do not address the many individuals who are both academics and scientists. The benefits of merging such highly-similar templates are explained in Wikipedia:Template consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think a merger would be little benefit (or perhaps some benefit to very few individuals), and create confusion or hardships for other users. This seems like a solution in search of a problem, and IMO a small amount of template overlap is justified for the sake of convenience (while bots and scripts have their role, Wikipedia is still largely driven by humans). --Animalparty! (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think that a lot of the editors opposing the proposal are doing so on the basis that, if we were discussing a category or text on a page or a title at the top of an infobox, it would be important to distinguish between academics (or scholars) and scientists. But that concern misses the point. This is the template for an infobox, and the template name does not get displayed on the biography page. If the same parameters are filled in, what readers would see on the page is exactly the same whether we call it academics or scientists. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may not have seen the interminable battles regarding labeling scientists with a religion. For a taste, see January 2009—the same issue has been raised many other times. Opening up the infobox to allow anyone to fill in every possible field just wastes time. An example is diff where Richard Dawkins had "Religion: Anglican (pre-1956) No religion/Atheist (post-1956)". Of course articles should discuss the religion of subjects where appropriate, but a label in an infobox is often highly misleading and is the source of pointless drama. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I have already pointed out to you above, ", if an editor currently wishes to include the religion of scientist, they can simply use {{Infobox academic}}" (or, for that matter, {{Infobox person}}. Maintaining the two separate templates under discussion does not prevent that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • If an infobox has a field, people will try to populate it—that's what wikignomes do. Ripping an infobox out of an established article and replacing it with a different one would require quite a lot of boldness, and would attract scrutiny. By comparison, adding nonsense like "Religion: Anglican (pre-1956) No religion/Atheist (post-1956)" to an existing field is common. The current system allows a central discussion to choose what fields are useful for the infobox of a scientist, whereas the grand vision of merging all templates into a master provides no guidance or control or standardization, and requires interminable arguments on individual pages. Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't understand how this is relevant to the discussion at hand. If the templates are merged, the consensus to not have a "religion" field can simply be extended to the consolidated template. Joe Roe (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why not leave the current situation which does not require the imposition of complete uniformity on the two infoboxes? If there is a good reason to remove religion from the academic infobox, that can be done. Otherwise, it can be retained. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your claim is easily refuted by the number of instances of each of the two templates under discussion, which do not use all the available parameters. Nobody is proposing "Ripping an infobox out of an established article and replacing it with a different one"; to claim otherwise is either FUD or reveals a base misunderstanding of what is proposed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tryptofish: the name of a template acts as documentation for editors, particularly new editors. Articles are often started by using an existing article as a template. Labelling Darwin an "academic" in wikitext would still be misleading. Using a more appropriate redirect is not a long-lasting solution; there's a considerable band of editors who spend their time going round changing redirect wikilinks to direct ones. But this isn't the only reason not to merge: merging implies that for all time we accept that the two categories will have exactly the same parameters, and as Johnuniq points out, this is not necessarily the case. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • "the name of a template acts as documentation for editors, particularly new editors..." Which is why redirects exist. The proposed merger will not change one character of the wikitext of the article on Charles Darwin. All parameters are and will remain optional, for all subjects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the reply, Peter. The way I see it, it's certainly true that the template name is seen in wikitext while editing. For readers, that does not matter. For new editors, as Andy points out, the problem can be dealt with by a redirect. It's true that new parameters may be added in the future, but that's only a problem if other parameters are removed. And if the parameter needs change a lot, it's possible to re-split the templates, although that's relatively unlikely. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Pigsonthewing and Tryptofish: you must both have very different watchlists to me. I'm always seeing gnomes replacing redirects by actual titles. In practice, redirect wikilinks should be treated as temporary, except on a well-watched page where watchers enforce MOS:RDR (I used to try, but it's just too time-consuming in most cases, so now I let a lot go). Peter coxhead (talk) 08:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps you could provide some diffs? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • A change involving templates that I've seen quite a bit lately is the one in dif . I've also seen a bunch of {{main}} → {{main article}} edits, but can't find a dif right now. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Neither of which are about infoboxes. The diff you provide is (per the edit summary) one of a series of "General Fixes using AWB)". AWB does not change infobox markup in this manner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, Peter, for me, templates are just not that big a deal. I've said what my opinion is. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose.This would be a labyrinthous task with confusing dissections 112.198.98.7 (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The claim that "this would be a labyrinthous task" is utterly without foundation. Please provide evidence, if you dispute this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is another overlapping strategy where it would mask the individual's title as a scientist. Being a scientist is an end product of a person's scientific success not his school. Also you are not aware that you are hiding the other essentials of people you are talking about like in Johann Wolfgang von Goethe has an Infobox as a writer but he is a scientist with his pronouncements that a "Leaf is Plant" much ahead than our modern molecular biologist. Therefore with such amalgamation of templates you are in the process of hiding selfishly the best type of Infobox template for the persons concerned.112.198.102.200 (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Due to difficulty of differentiating individually scientists from academician e.g. for instance if one is awarded a royal academy of..... inspite of the fact that he is never connected with a university in the span of his career, I would suggest that to get rid of these two templates- Infobox scientist and Infobox academic and stick to Infobox person. Outside of this infobox he or she will be introduced in one line as a scientist or a schizophrenic writer or whatever and a cascading chapters of information will follow.112.198.102.61 (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, no evidence of a "labyrinthous task", then. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course there is- how about if the academic aspect does not support his being a scientist; is lacking; a self study scientist but renowned; or of entirely different field like dancing but a success as a molecular scientist, etc. or a scientist who studied law and excels and environmental science is only a hobby...so how will you squeeze these all in your template? You are creating a big mess, of course a very big maze.112.198.101.87 (talk) 12:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Some people who are classified as scientists are not academics. The most notable example I can think of is Bill Nye. I think it merging the two would have the potential of spreading false information. Biglulu (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The suggestion that a merge would "potential of spreading false information" is utterly bogus. Please feel fee to refute this with evidence, rather than asserting a belief. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Scientists and academics are independent concepts. You can be an academic without being a scientist and you can be a scientist without being an academic (and of course you can be both at the same time, which is frequently the case). Famous academics such as historians and literature professors are not scientists and to classify and label them as "scientists" would be ridiculous. The alterative (to label all scientists as academics) is just wrong. There are lots of famous scientists who are not academics. First you have the historical ones, such as those employed by royalty, but you also have the non-academic scientists employees employed elsewhere besides universities: observatories, governments, private labs, military, and so on. Many famous scientists did not even have degrees and a quick google search will find lists such such things. I think this proposal was made too hastily. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You cannot be a scientist without being an academic, in the broad sense used in the title of the infobox in question, meaning anyone engaged in scientific/scholarly activities. Academic is simply a broader term in this context. If a biography uses an infobox for scientists/scholars/academics, it is without doubt because the subject is notable for academic(/scientific/scholarly) work. The discussion of terminology also misses the point, which is whether we need one template for academics/researchers in natural sciences and related fields ("scientists"), and one for academics/researchers in other disciplines than natural sciences ("social scientists", "scholars" etc) who are traditionally not called "scientists" in English (as opposed to most other languages, in which the word for "science" doesn't refer specifically to natural sciences, e.g. German Wissenschaft). The template is (or should be) intended for people who are (overlappingly) called scientists, social scientists, scholars, academics, researchers, and a number of other terms. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't believe this. If you go to the educational history of past scientists, they mostly learned their craft by self. There is even one who took his doctorate from an unknown or probably from a bogus school for 1 week (check it at wikipedia) but he is consistently a scientist. Others had degrees not related to science but they excelled in the field as scientist by experience and enthusiasm (e.g. a lawyer by degree that become a significant biological explorer). Is that what you mean by academics?112.198.102.200 (talk) 09:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a debate about whether scientists and academics are the same thing; it's a question of whether we need one template, or two. If you believe we need two, please make a case for that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is very difficult to differentiate as well as relate academics to scientists holistically but not as difficult as differentiating and relating a pig from a boar.112.198.102.200 (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Redacted) First before you tackle this you must define clearly what a scientist is and what an academician is. These terms have been used commonly by editors for they are considered as is. But with its concrete definition (which is being awaited as of now) there will be an overhauling of all biographies which I believe the editors will find crazy and the persons or their kins, colleagues for those who died with such biographies may object to it.112.198.101.87 (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Strongly urge that Citizenship (alongside Nationality and Residence be left out of a combined box, as they are of negligible value to the readers and cause grief to the editors. Strongly dislike the idea of calling it infobox scholar. Scientists are not scholars; scholars work in the humanities. Can't we keep both names? Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As already explained above, yes, both names would be kept; with one as a redirect to the other (or both redirecting to a third). The removal or addition of parameters would be a matter for the talk page of the merged template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • How can you redirect, if one is qualitatively and quantitatively more of a scientist than an academician or vice versa?112.198.98.250 (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support then. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Most scientists are not academics, but work in research labs or industry. But there is value having fewer templates to maintain. I see two issues.
1) Currently the templates produce very different appearances on the page. "Academic" has large sections with headings "Academic background", "Academic work" which wouldn't be appropriate for a lot of scientists. "Scientist" has "Author abbrev". fields for botany and zoology. Andy, could you give us a preview of what the combined template would look like?
2) The "religion" field was removed from "infobox scientist" because of the problems it caused. Would the field be included in the merged template?
StarryGrandma (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that it wrap {{Infobox person}}, as {{Infobox academic}} already does, and so to look more like that, with more generic headings; but again, subsequent changes are a matter for its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that difference in displayed field names, sorry. In light of that fact, I am no longer fully supporting the merge. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is more of a chaff than the grain. If ever this becomes a decisive bandwagon like an "emperor without clothes", a lot of unraveling will be done to return the templates to the original. Waste of time, a warrantless move, more of an abstract than concrete, intangible and crisscrossing, foolish like a clown, a child's illustration to the world of wonder, immature thinking, very indirect and would generate false information or easily would lead to errors, unripened generalizations and fake synonyms and more.112.198.83.243 (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As many have said, this accomplishes nothing useful. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cmt: The terminology issue is not really relevant to the question at hand: whether we need one template for academics/researchers in natural sciences/mathematics/medicine, and one for academics/researchers in social sciences, humanities etc. If people feel so strongly about the terminology used in the name of the template (which isn't even visible to readers), the template could be called Template:Infobox scientist or scholar or something like that with redirects from Template:Infobox scientist, Template:Infobox scholar, Template:Infobox academic. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Not every academic is a scientist and vice versa. Merge doesn't look fruitful.Pratyush (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Two infoboxes required for two distinct social roles: don't dumb us down. — Rgdboer (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both but rewrite both. Rewrite "Infobox scientist" as a wrapper for "Infobox person" with a separate Template:Infobox scientific career module following the pattern of {{Infobox engineer}} with the specfic details in {{Infobox engineering career}}. This removes much of the maintenance problem since editors often goof up infobox code. Leave out the "religion" field as the "Infobox engineer" does. Second, rewrite "Infobox academic" so that "Academic background" and "Academic work" (or "academic career") are separate modules that can be used in "Infobox scientist" (and other places like {{Infobox medical person}}). What do you think Andy? StarryGrandma (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — Not all academics are scientists... plain. and. simple. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 23:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It has been pointed out several times that the fact that "scientist" and "academic" are not fully intersecting categories is not a reason to maintain two functionally identical templates. Any confusion or inconsistencies regarding the name of the template can easily be resolved using redirects. Might I suggest that it would be more productive if oppose !voters from this point either explain why this does not sufficiently address the issue, or else avoid repeating "not all scientists are not academics/not all academics are scientists" ad nauseum? Joe Roe (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are not functionally identical, as has been pointed out. StarryGrandma's idea above of keeping each infobox as a front-end to some master infobox would be fine—just don't change what happens in articles without good reason. Tidying up the wiki is a fine ambition, but having two templates instead of one is not a great technological burden. Johnuniq (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • How are they not functionally identical? One is a template for all academics/researchers regardless of discipline (including scientists, but also including social scientists and so forth). The other is a template for academics/researchers within some particular, but very broad fields (natural and formal sciences, but not social sciences, humanities etc). The templates are very similar and there is no particular reason why they cannot be merged into one. Currently, it's totally random which template is used even in (natural) scientists' biographies. One template would be easier to maintain, easier and less confusing for editors, and ensure that infoboxes in this type of articles looked consistent. The "not all academics are scientists" argument is not an argument against merging these templates, as the template wouldn't have to be called Infobox scientist. The main template could end up being called Infobox scientist or scholar, for example, with redirects from shorter terms such as Infobox scholar and Infobox scientist (and Infobox academic). --Bjerrebæk (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Assume the two templates are functionally identical. In that case, anyone could make one of them a redirect to the other, no one would notice because they are identical, and there would be no need to have a merge discussion. That has not happened because the two templates are not functionally identical. One significant difference can be seen above (search for "religion"). Johnuniq (talk) 04:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE. Scientists have publications while Academicians are executives of schools usually involved in running universities, rants lectures in trying to make the student pass the board or licensure exam and are very much associated with the curriculum. They are involved in summing up the school's rating in international level in different categories. They are least interested in publications. Therefore they must not be merged.112.198.82.171 (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you got that from, but many professors do have to do research and publish books, journals, etc. This however does not make them a scientist though. 13:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Therefore you unknown fellow winky or ugly or pretty below the face or above it eeek, you need to conclude that the 2 are immiscible as water and oil and they must not be merged. Don't leave your statement hanging!112.198.69.142 (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A merger implies giving a single name to these templates, and this is either going to cause confusion for editors wishing to add an infobox for scientists who are not academics (e.g. the many scientists working outside academia, e.g. in industry or, depending on the definition of academia, in government research facilities, and many historical figures) or for academics who are not scientists (such as C. S. Lewis, the example given in the academic infobox). Although the templates are similar, they are not identical, and we need to consider how this is going to cause confusion for editors as well as for readers. There are better solutions than merger, as mentioned by other contributors to this discussion. Robminchin (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Several scientists have nothing to do with academia and the two concepts are not overlapping. For example, Antoine Lavoisier is notable for discoveries in the fields of biology and chemistry, but never held a science degree and was not involved with academia at all. Dimadick (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not to mention all those non-academic amateur astronomers doing significant scientific research (there are more than 100 such articles on wikipedia). I think it is time to close this discussion. Rfassbind – talk 21:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Although the comments above are correct that academics≠scholars≠scientists≠researchers, the information included in either is identical. One template can simply redirect to the other, with the wikimarkup still retaining whichever template name is preferred on that page. The main benefit of merging is that it allows centralised control of the main template, so that work is not duplicated when editing both. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the two infoboxes were identical, there would be no need for a merge discussion. No one would even notice if one was replaced with a redirect to the other. Johnuniq (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Close - The first for considering this matter a used and welcome asset for contributors and some burden for the maintenance crew, where I like to forward the interests of the former more than the hard work of the latter, which I see transferable to bots in this here case. The second for a lately perceived tendency of declining argumentation. I dislike offense, perpetuating personal convictions, and even the use of *bogus* on others. Purgy (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close. Although I agree the templates should ideally be merged, there doesn't appear to be consensus to do so, and it seems very unlikely that such a consensus will emerge at this point in the discussion. I therefore agree that we should close the discussion, as the "The template below is being considered for merging" notice is currently cluttering up a huge number of articles. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 08:48, 28 September 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:Campaignbox Roman–Gallic Wars 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 merge, keeping {{Campaignbox Roman–Gallic Wars}}. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Merge Template:Campaignbox Roman–Gaulish Wars to Template:Campaignbox Roman–Gallic Wars.
It should be merged because the two are almost identical, with the battle of Mutina being different, one of them is the battle of mutina in 193 one is of 194. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The two templates appear to deal with the same campaign. The differences between the two boxes are minor, and there doesn't appear to be any reason for the difference. Our article on the wars is called Roman-Gallic wars, so the campaignbox should probably be under that title too for consistency. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No reason to have two templates for the same campaign. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note from nom I have added the only difference between the two to gallic wars, I added battle of mutina in 193 BC to gallic wars, so gaulish wars might also be deleted.
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_September_21&oldid=1084289415"