Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 November 20

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 19 November 21 >

November 20 edit

Template:Infobox supercluster 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 to Template:Infobox galaxy cluster. General consensus that there is enough redundancy to merge these two templates. There is no prejudice against moving it to a different title (one suggestion was {{Infobox galaxy group}}) or holding a subsequent discussion re: merge with {{infobox astronomical object}}. Primefac (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox supercluster into Template:Infobox galaxy cluster.

Very similar templates; only two of the parameters in the supercluster template (|major_axis_mpc= and |minor_axis_mpc=) do not occur on the other one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support should be doable without much extra work. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - by that reasoning, we should try to merge all astronomical object infoboxes into {{Infobox astronomical object}}. WP:ASTRONOMY uses different infoboxes for different class objects. While supercluster may only have 2 parameters not in galaxy cluster, the two templates use |luminosity= & |flux= differently (x-ray only vs. any (specify)). Also, galaxy cluster uses |richness=, |bmtype=, |velocity_dispersion=, |richness=, |temperature=, and |notes= (notable features), while supercluster does not. All this would make for needlessly complicated and confusing documentation. Sure, the templates can be merged, just like we can merge them into {{Infobox astronomical object}}, but it seems ill-conceived, and more like a solution in search of a problem.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The code in Infobox supercluster is: 

|label12=[[Luminosity#In_astronomy|Luminosity (specify)]]
|data12={{{luminosity<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}
|label13=[[flux|Flux (specify)]]
|data13={{{flux<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}

and in Infobox galaxy cluster: 

|label14=[[Luminosity#In astronomy|X-ray luminosity]]
|data14={{{luminosity<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}
|label15=[[flux|X-ray flux]]
|data15={{{flux<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}

They are not "using" the values differently, and there are only trivial differences in labellings links to the same target pages, which can be resolved by better choice of wording, or a switch. We do not need separate templates just to label two parameters slightly differently. The problem which this merge solves is described in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That distinction will have to be communicated in the documentation, as well as the aforementioned mismatch of parameters. Seems needlessly complicated to me, definitely not worth the effort, and still a solution in search of a problem. Also, you wrote the essay Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation; try not to throw it around like a meaningful policy.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation is headed "This page is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines...", so your "throw it around like a meaningful policy" smear is fallacious. Nonetheless, the points it makes have been held true in a great many TfDs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – While I do agree with Tom.Reding and fellow WikiProject Astronomy editors' assertion that infoboxes for distinctly different astronomical objects need to be kept separate, I don't see how Galaxy groups, Galaxy clusters, and Superclusters are that fundamentally different in a practical sense. Scientifically speaking, they are categorically different as in one is a larger step of the other, sure. But at the end of the day, all three astronomical object types are basically the same – a group of galaxies of differing sizes. The parameters in {{Infobox supercluster}} and {{Infobox galaxy cluster}} are mostly the same because of this simple fact as well. If {{Infobox planet}} can be satisfactory for use on pages of not only planets, but comets, natural satellites, and minor planets of all shapes and sizes as well, why can there be a single infobox for all astronomical objects that are groups of galaxies, regardless of size? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 10:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{Infobox planet}} is not (and should not be) used on all comets; it's only used on ambiguous comets which share a minor planet designation. This has no bearing/impact on clusters/superclusters.
    • {{Infobox Moon}} used to be used, until some time after Pluto was demoted, which I think helped spur the unification of {{Infobox planet}}. This has no bearing/impact on clusters/superclusters.
    • When it comes to satellites and minor planets, aside from sharing the word 'planet' in certain cases, we use {{Infobox planet}} because the nomenclature is messy. This has no bearing/impact on clusters/superclusters.
    • The distinction between cluster & supercluster is much less messy; the former are building block of the latter. This has no bearing/impact on planets/minor planets/satellites/comets.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: these are different classes of objects. Praemonitus (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question is whether the templates are sufficiently dissimilar to justify having both; as has been shown, they are not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • as has been shown, they are not - disagree; I think it has been shown that they are sufficiently dissimilar. Regardless, that is up to the closer.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Tom.Reding: This is a contradiction to your earlier analysis that "While supercluster may only have 2 parameters not in galaxy cluster...". You also mentioned that {{Infobox galaxy cluster}} having six parameters that {{Infobox supercluster}} does not is somehow a negative. In a merged template, you simply just don't use those parameters on an article about a supercluster if they're not applicable. So this is still a difference of only two parameters; too little to justify an entire separate template. If you have concerns about "needlessly complicated and confusing documentation", we can simply write up documentation that isn't needlessly complicated and confusing. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 21:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • For a frequent user of astronomy templates like myself, merged templates of different object classes are cumbersome to use. Hence I remain in opposition. Praemonitus (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Praemonitus: What would be cumbersome about this potential merger from your point of view, may I ask? It would be largely the same template after the merger, since the infobox parameters don't differ much at all. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 21:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • @PhilipTerryGraham: For me the most cumbersome part is working through the massive documentation trying to work out what options I need to document a particular parameter. The larger the template, the worse it gets. Plus they are harder to debug when something isn't right. For example, I prefer the format of the {{citation}} template to {{cite journal}} or {{cite conference}}, but it can be a royal pain to use at times. Praemonitus (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Praemonitus: This ideally shouldn't be a problem if a) the code is written in a straightforward and uncomplicated manner, in which {{Infobox galaxy cluster}} doesn't seem to be as it is a simple |header= and |data= list with a grand total of only two parser functions, and b) the documentation is written in a way that makes each parameter easy to understand and a satisfactory amount of detail for explaining how and why the infobox code is set up the way it is, is included. Unfortunately, the documentation on both {{Infobox supercluster}} and {{Infobox galaxy cluster}}, but I can help assist in rewriting the documentation should the templates be merged. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • @PhilipTerryGraham: The net effect of which will be to conglomerate the documentation of two different object types onto a single page, which is not an improvement. Now you could separate out the types into parts as is done with {{Infobox planet}}, but as an editor it is still better and less work to just have them documented separately. No, I'm opposed. Praemonitus (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Praemonitus: I still don't understand your viewpoint. The templates, if merged, will only have a gain of two parameters. I don't understand how a mere two parameters suddenly makes the documentation too long and/or unreadable. Apart from that, I'll reiterate that documentations won't be confusing or unreadable if they're written up clearly and concisely. There's no reason to say that a documentation that makes it perfectly clear what each parameter does and why the code is set a specific way is bad because of its size. Editors are unlikely going need to read the entire thing, anyway. You mentioned {{Citation}}, {{Cite journal}}, and {{Cite conference}}, and all three of those templates have documentations that will be significantly larger and more complex than the documentation for a merged {{Infobox galaxy cluster}} would ever hope to be, so your worry about merged documentation seems even more unfounded. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 15:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @PhilipTerryGraham: At this point I'm wondering how many astronomical object articles have you actually created? Ah well, I suppose our viewpoints are irreconcilable. Praemonitus (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                    • @Praemonitus: Are you seriously trying to argue that your opinion's better than mine because you've created more articles than me? You should be focused on discussing the template, not questioning how many articles I've created, lest you get yourself into trouble. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 17:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                      • @PhilipTerryGraham: Oh settle down. I'm pointing out that I have frequent practical experience with the use of the astronomy templates, rather than a theoretical ivory tower perspective that does not take into consideration the more important practical element of their usage. It's all well and good to argue from a template maintenance perspective, but that should be of lesser importance compared to supporting the editing community. Praemonitus (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Praemonitus: If you genuinely wanted to know what my experience was, you would've looked it up yourself. There's no point to needlessly bring it up during a discussion about a template, especially as vague as how you originally worded it. You need to take your statements more seriously than telling people to just "settle down" when you tread uncomfortably close to violating policy. As a reply to your clarification; we'll all be using these templates, so I'm discussing on behalf of how I would want to use the templates, much like everybody else here, including yourself. Describing other people's opinions as "ivory tower perspective[s]" just because they've created less articles or edited articles less than you have is pretty shallow. I think it's impractical to keep two largely identical templates seperate, and I would much rather be able to edit infoboxes with a unified syntax for similar topics rather than study separate syntaxes and documentations for what is essentially the same template with minor differences in syntax. For you to say that my opinion isn't grounded in practicality is unfair. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 18:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I understand where Tom.Reding is coming from, but templates should always take into consideration the maintenance of code and everything it entails. Looking at the two templates, they are extremely similar and deal with very similar objects. Are both objects the same? No, and no one said they are. Can both be handled by the same template? Yes, as both use almost the same parameters. Most templates have parameters which aren't always all used by every single article that uses them, and that's ok (as much as it can be with the current system). Labels can be changed with various ways, so that issue shouldn't be an issue either. --Gonnym (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Templates are supposed to be for the benefit of people maintain articles; not for those supporting the code. The code only needs to be updated once – article templates many many times. Conglomerated templates are a pain for article editors. Praemonitus (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I largely agree with efforts to consolidate infoboxes, for example the recently nom'd {{Infobox aqueduct}} & {{Infobox bridge}}, when one infobox is a specific case of the other, more general one. But I'm afraid the success of TfMs like those has caused editors to slippery-slope their way into rationalizing cases like {{Infobox supercluster}} & {{Infobox galaxy cluster}}. A line must be drawn somewhere, lest we use {{Infobox astronomical object}} for all things astronomy (for example), and care needs to be taken not to be swept up in the consolidation fervor.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - or better yet, use {{Infobox astronomical object}}. I don't agree that we need different templates for different classes of things where one template can do the job just as well, particularly when we're talking about a specialised subject such as this, where there's a huge overlap between the topics (anyone want to attempt to draw a clear dividing line between the two templates / when something is a supercluster and not a galaxy cluster?). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm still not sure which vote to cast yet. As it was pointed out, if merged, there should be two different definitions of parameters depending on their use for a galaxy cluster or a supercluster. I don't know if this occurs in any other template. On the other side, {{Infobox settlement}} is an example of a template that works on two or more "different scale objects", like the merge would lead to. Psyluke (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think that they can be merged into one template (for example, {{Infobox galaxy group}}) with an additional parameter like type=group|cluster|supercluster|wall, which should account for different behavior of some parameters. Ruslik_Zero 20:45, 2 December 2018 (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 star 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 orphan / deprecate for now. There is a general consensus that this template is far less-used than the corresponding {{starbox begin}} family of templates and not as comprehensive, but there appears to be an active drive to incorporate that family into the infobox (note the similar proposal to fold in the related planetbox family into {{infobox planet}}). After this template has been orphaned and updated to the desires of those doing the overhaul, there is no prejudice against a new proposal to merge the starbox begin family with this infobox. If there is no consensus to approve such a merger at that time, then this template can be deleted. Primefac (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only 5 transclusions; and redundant to the {{Starbox begin}} family of templates, which are used on over 4500 articles; or to {{Starbox short}}, which has over 450 uses. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess this links in with Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_18#Template:Planetbox_begin, and it should ideally be clearer which way around we want to go (whether to use the 'infobox x' or the 'xbox begin' styles). From my perspective, I'd rather we end up using {{Infobox astronomical object}}, which is where I was working on Wikidata integration for this topic. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would much rather see us using {{Infobox star}} here but Andy makes a good point. I think this warrants further discussion on what we want to be the end result. Ideally if we could standardize to {{Infobox astronomical object}} that would be best I think. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've never used either so I don't feel qualified to vote here. Based solely on aesthetics and infobox standards, however, I'd prefer to see a unified/standard {{Infobox star}} than disjointed {{Starbox etc.}}s. Also, since it was brought up, I think {{Infobox astronomical object}} should be kept as a separate catch-all template for when a more appropriate infobox does not exist, and not as a means of absorbing all astronomical infoboxes.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{Starbox begin}} has many elements that {{Starbox short}} doesn't have and are fundamental when talking about stars, i.e. what we see as a single star is instead made of two stars orbiting each other. Here I would strongly recommend to drop the latter in favor of the first. Moreover, using {{Infobox astronomical object}} would be like using the same infobox for mountains and forests; I would never do it. Psyluke (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per the nomination, {{infobox star}} simply isn't used and doesn't support the needs of articles about stars. Any attempt to upgrade it to a useful level would be pointless duplication. If there is an issue with the five articles that transclude it, I'll update them to use the starbox templates. Lithopsian (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually mind what the ultimate template is called, it could even be called {{infobox star}}, but what we have now isn't fit for purpose and should be deleted to avoid confusion. If someone wants to develop something better than what we have now, that's great, and then we can talk about making it the standard, name TBD. Lithopsian (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this is extremely inconvenient as I had just started working on a new version of this template in a sandbox the day before this deletion discussion was started. Just as a note to this discussion as a whole, it will eventually be recreated by me if it is deleted, and will be tested out for discussion on how to further improve upon it as an adequate successor to the outdated, and frankly pretty annoying, Starbox series. The series as a whole is awful to Wikipedia and its articles about stars. They're almost always overbloated with information an average reader with a casual interest in astronomy would ever need to know, resulting in infoboxes that overlap multiple sections and displace multiple images. A vast majority of the information is almost always never repeated in the article prose, and thus fails as a summary of "key facts" in an article, which is ultimately the purpose of an infobox in the first place. The infobox needs to be short, to-the-point, and populated with only the most important facts featured in an article. No apparent magnitudes in ten different infrared bands, no orbital elements that are too advanced even for Kerbal Space Program players, no swarms of database links, and most importantly, no need for multiple templates just for each section. Infoboxes should never be this complicated and awful, and it's time to change that. Zackmann08, Tom.Reding, Psyluke, and Lithopsian, what do you guys think? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 01:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PhilipTerryGraham: SO WELL SAID!!!! Bravo sir, bravo. I 100% agree with you. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PhilipTerryGraham: We can deprecate some entries in {{Starbox begin}} which are not useful, but if a star is double there would be a double infobox with almost the same entries (the ones for the "position" of the star in space), so here comes again the bloating. And I don't want to think what will happen to triple stars. So, no, I won't change my mind, unless we want to change the wikipedia policies and make two articles for a double star instead of one. Psyluke (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Psyluke: It won't be as bloated if we don't have too many parameters for each star; an example of which can be seen currently on my sandbox page. If the current version of the {{Infobox star}} sandbox code was applied to Alpha Centauri, it would reduce the infobox size by nearly two-thirds, and would not even overlap the first section of the article, "Nomenclature". This is all done with a single template with simple syntax instead of the article's current horror-inducing arrangement of {{Starbox begin}}, {{Starbox image}}, {{Starbox observe 2s}}, {{Starbox character}}, {{Starbox astrometry}}, {{Starbox detail}}, {{Starbox orbit}}, {{Starbox catalog}}, {{Starbox reference}}, and {{Starbox end}}. That's ten templates that are currently doing what a single template can achieve in a much easier and efficient manner. I cannot possibly understand why you would perfer this arrangement over something a lot more simple, versatile, and easier to use. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 15:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well I have to strongly disagree regarding your tirade concerning the starbox templates. But that's a discussion for another day. For now they are more than suitable for the task. Praemonitus (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PhilipTerryGraham: MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which you cited, also says this: As with any guideline, there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox. Prominent examples include the ICD codes in {{Infobox medical condition}} and most of the parameters in {{Infobox chemical}}. I think it's unfair for you to say that an infobox is a summary of the "key facts" while also ignoring the next paragraph. Loooke (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Loooke: So, which cells in the Starbox series would be difficult to integrate into the article? All links in {{Starbox reference}} can easily be placed in an "External links" section, for example, and many details, such as apparent and absolute magnitudes, can be described inline in the article prose. It's in turn unfair for you to accuse me of "ignoring" guidelines. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @PhilipTerryGraham: Sorry, I really I shouldn't have been so harsh in that earlier post. Anyway, a lot of important parameters, such as all the orbital parameters in {{Starbox orbit}} (like longitude of ascending node, argument of pericenter, etc.) are important to characterize the orbit of stars, but hard to put into prose. Other parameters like radial velocity and proper motion in {{Starbox orbit}} characterize the motion of the star. As for your point that database links should go in the "External links" section, I notice that {{Starbox reference}} and {{Chembox}} have their own spaces for database links, and I'm not really sure why Starboxes are any different. Loooke (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Loooke: I think it's actually pretty easy to put it in prose. On Alpha Centauri, a passage such as "The longitude of the ascending node for Alpha Centauri B's orbit is 204.85±0.084°, while its argument of periapstron is 231.65±0.076°.", followed by the appropriate citations, can be written. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 06:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • @PhilipTerryGraham: It's easy but it's nothing more then a list of parameters, which is something to avoid when writing into prose. I still keep thinking that including those parameters in the infobox will serve better both the "casual" readers than people who are actually looking for those numbers. Psyluke (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Psyluke: Inline writing takes up significantly less space in the article than an infobox cell. Anybody genuinely looking for the numbers shouldn't really have any trouble finding them if they are placed in the appropriate places in an article. Over-reliance on infoboxes is what got us into the mess of oversized, overlapping, and bloated infoboxes in the first place. The article itself should be the focus of the article, not its infobox. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 15:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • @PhilipTerryGraham: As a last comment (since we are not moving from our first statement) I'll say that the articles layout are fine even with the {{Starbox begin}}, this template is not disrupting any layout and there isn't anything "Oversized, overlapping and bloated". Some part of it can be trimmed down, and your Alpha Centauri example shows a "blind" use of the template (I will dispute it to shrink its size). Still, a {{Infobox astronomical object}} would be a cataclysm for the articles about astronomical object, and I'm not "bloating" this point. Psyluke (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion of the infobox, now, does not prevent you from creating a new template, in a sandbox, and then proposing deletion of the Starbox series, to be replaced with your new template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based on the impending rework described above by PhilipTerryGraham.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I know that the alternative {{Starboxes}} are a bit more annoying to use, but that's not relevant to whether we want to delete this specific template. As it stands, this template is unused. If we decide that the template we want to use is {{Infobox star}}, then we can switch to that later. Loooke (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, with no prejudice against its recreation in an improved format that accommodates the starbox template parameters. However, such an effort should include full coordination with WP:ASTRO. Praemonitus (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment reading through this, it seems like everyone is basically saying the same thing. Either people are saying "Keep this it is much better than the other." or "Delete this to make way for the other". So there are a couple of points that have been made:
Based on that, I propose the following (hear me out). Why don't we convert the 5 transclusions over the use {{Starbox begin}}. That would then free up {{Infobox star}} to be fully converted over to a unified template. Mike Peel just an idea... What you might consider is the following. Withdraw the nomination and convert the 5 transclusions over to use the existing starbox series (FOR NOW). Then I'll personally take on the task of creating a unified infobox template that replicates the fields and functionality of the starbox series but in ONE template as opposed to a series of separate templates. I'll do it at {{Infobox star}} which then won't have to be deleted, just repurposed. @PhilipTerryGraham, Pigsonthewing, and Tom.Reding: also curious what you think about that idea. I realize that is a bit of an unorthodox approach... but just an idea. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have already addressed this, in my post time-stamped 13:04, 24 November 2018. And no, I won't be withdrawing this proposal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: ok. Was just trying to suggest a solution. Never mind. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:58, 28 November 2018 (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:Splyce 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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just one blue link and two total transclusions. Raymie (t • c) 16:36, 20 November 2018 (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:Mark Hentemann 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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to warrant a navbox. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 14:40, 20 November 2018 (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:Team Misfits 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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three blue links, but none of them currently play for Misfits. Worth noting their roster on website is out of date, not aiding any analysis. Raymie (t • c) 08:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General comment After appraising a bunch of templates and finding... four of them worthy of deletion and a few others hanging on by a thread, a few opinion notes here. Coverage seems to be particularly poor outside of League of Legends on these. It's evident the broader editor base doesn't exist to keep the templates for even the bigger organizations up to date outside of League, and even in League the number of redlinks is still quite high for professional players. (That may indicate notability standards could be useful, or a concerted drive to create articles for at least top-league players.) In any event, not every organization needs a navbox, and even for those that do, the paucity of articles that might otherwise exist suggests it might not be time yet to have these for a number of orgs. Raymie (t • c) 08:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was interested on how other professional sports handle player roosters in navbox so looked at Michael Jordan and Template:Chicago Bulls. NBA templates don't list the current rooster in the navbox, maybe for the exact reason that was raised here, that players change teams so that information will need to be consistently kept up-to-date. This specific template also has way too many red links and not enough blue links. --Gonnym (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per nomination. CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:41, 22 November 2018 (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:H2k-Gaming 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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This template links to no existing articles. Raymie (t • c) 08:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no links so not a navigation template. --Gonnym (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2018 (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:GODSENT 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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the four redlinks are redirects to Godsent and the fourth redirects elsewhere. This navbox has lost all navigational purpose. Raymie (t • c) 08:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no real links so not a navigation template. --Gonnym (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2018 (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:Team Vitality 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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One current player with a blue link and just two incoming transclusions from other articles. Not enough links to stick around. Raymie (t • c) 07:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - one link is not enough for a navigation template. --Gonnym (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2018 (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 natural region of Germany 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 relisted on 2018 November 30. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:44, 30 November 2018 (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:Tfm 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 Speedy keep. (non-admin closure) WP:POINT Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Using almost the same template for merging of templates as deletion of templates may have seemed like a good idea back in 2006, but with so many infobox merger nominations recently, the TFM template is becoming an eyesore. Kill it with fire. Kamafa Delgato (Lojbanist)Styrofoam is not made from kittens. 03:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If displaying it widely on infoboxes is an "eyesore", then we can use <noinclude> (which can even be set as the default). One can start an RfC to garner consensus for that. But we obviously need a template for notifying of mergers and thus this nomination is just silly. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no proposal for what to replace this useful template with. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template is used all the time and serves an important purpose. Sorry that notifying people of discussions in an "eyesore" to you. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:POINT. No policy-based reason for deletion is given, and no viable alternative is proposed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep Per Andy. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 19:10, 20 November 2018 (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:H. P. Lovecraft 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 relisted on 2018 November 30. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:43, 30 November 2018 (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:Warning archive notice 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 relisted on 2018 November 28. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:14, 28 November 2018 (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/2018_November_20&oldid=955595318"