Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 17

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Titanic on film and TV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Titanic memorials (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Both of the above templates have been combined into {{RMS Titanic}}. Brad (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Both are fully integrated into one easy template. Jarkeld (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We really ought to have a speedy criterion for such cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We really ought to have a speedy criterion for such cases. Alarbus (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I would also call speedy criterion. Tupsumato (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: You'd think that this could be speedyed, but it has quite a few transclusions, so it would be bounced here despite being a duplicate. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note All transclusions have been removed. Brad (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NEFL Labelled Map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The edit history of the associated image indicates that it is for the home cities for the teams of the New England Football League (high school). There is no corresponding article, but if there were then this would be a useful map. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicate of

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NC State-East Carolina Result (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yet another unused bracket template Bulwersator (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NCAABB seasons table coach row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NBL 2007-08 Position Ladder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Books of the Old Testament (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Summary: The move to reduce the number of navigational templates on pages about the Books of the Bible has been dragging on for a long time, with everyone agreeing that five navigational templates per page, all with essentially the same information and links, is too much. However, inertia and proceduralism have prevented any progress in actually getting rid of any of the templates.

This template duplicates Template:Books of the Bible and Template:Tanakh OT. They have the same content, and appear together on most pages where they are employed. The Books of the Bible template is a standard bottom-of-the page horizontal collapsible template. The nomination is a sidebar template, and is positioned in a different location on various pages, in part because there are multiple navigational templates on many of these pages, and the (duplicate) templates complete for the same space. See for example the entry for the Book of Deuteronomy, where the top of the page displays Template:Tanakh OT, and the nominated template appears in the Bibliography at the bottom of the page, below the Template:Books of Torah navigational template, but above the aforementioned Template:Books of the Bible and a misuse of the holder-of-office succession template.

All of these templates provide the same information and clutter the page. The nomination is a sidebar template that appears in varying locations when it is used, because (a) another template has been selected to occupy the infobox position at the top of the page, and (b) it cannot appear at the bottom because it is not a horizontal template like Template:Books of the Bible which it duplicates.

The discussion to reduce the number of navigational templates has been on-going

This discussion has drug on for a long time, with no voice in support of keeping this template. It meets the speedy deletion criterion for substantial duplication of content. Can we please just put the issue to rest and get on with improving Wikipedia instead of spending all this time dealing with procedural red tape? EncycloPetey (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin: If the decision is to delete this template, simply close and notify me. I am an admin myself and would be more than happy to take care of all cleanup associated with the template being orphaned and deleted. You need not take time yourself for that task. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant: Jewish canon information is contained in Tanakh template, Christian (Deuterocanonical and NT) info is contained in "Books of the Bible". --JohnChrysostom (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: other templates already duplicate this one, and the proliferation of side-placed templates such as this badly hinders clarity and simplicity of layout. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to formally merge at this time, however, there appears to be some support for refactoring {{infobox writer}} so that it internally calls {{infobox person}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox writer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox person (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox writer with Template:Infobox person.
Only minor differences; so merge 'writer into 'person. Prior, unresolved discussion at Template talk:Infobox person/Mergers#Infobox Writer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, that is, don't merge. This merge proposal seems to be based on the misapprehension that it's always better to have more fields, therefore the only differences that could possibly be significant would be inclusion of fields in infobox writer that are not in infobox person. But on the contrary, it's highly undesirable to have inappropriate fields available in an infobox, because they become an attractive nuisance; in the long run, those inappropriate fields will tend to get filled in, lowering the overall quality of the pages. A case in point is field religion — there has been a robust consensus over a long time that there shouldn't be such a field in infobox writer. It's understandable that an infobox without a sharp focus, such as infobox person, would be cursed with a need for excess fields, and people who work with such an infobox would be naturally drawn into thinking excess fields are a good thing; but as noted, excess fields in an infobox are a long-term toxin to article quality. --Pi zero (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no point in having one infobox which is simply a subset of another; if an editor wants to add a relevant religion to the infobox in an article about a writer, they'll just change the infobox to {{Infobox person}}. On the other hand, the benefits of reducing the number of similar templates - reduced maintenance overhead, reduced confision for editors - are long-established. In any case, I don't believe that the wider community has reached consensus that religion is a valid field in one of these infoboxes but not the other. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge per Pi_zero above, same issue with "cause of death" present in infobox person but without consensus to have it in infobox writer. Also I find these monster templates "infobox whatever" with their endless parameters very confusing for new editors, making Wikipedia less editor friendly. I find nothing wrong with the template as it is. --Elekhh (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again: how can there be community consensus to include a field like "cause of death" about people, but not writers? I call
    bogus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • A generic template will have all possible fields, while a specific template is customised for a particular purpose. Two different things. --Elekhh (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • that doesn't answer my question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • A field that is appropriate for all people would be appropriate for writers, but the criterion for inclusion of a field in infobox person isn't that the field be appropriate for all people, it's that the field be appropriate for some people. Existential quantification versus universal quantification. If you consider the claim of bogosity a separate question, I'd say that in the form stated it's a bogus claim of bogosity since it equates a lack of consensus to allow something, with a positive consensus to disallow it. --Pi zero (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • If an inappropriate field is included in {{Infobox person}}, then that should be addressed on its talk page, or at a centralised discussion elsewhere, in order that community consensus can be reached. It's not a reason to maintain a forked, duplicate template without that field. I regret that the second half of your comment is too convoluted for me to parse. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, oppose merge Reality is often untidy, and whereas it might be convenient if people could be described uniformly, as explained above there are good reasons for focusing the infobox for a writer in a different manner from one for a generic person. If a religion field (or something else) is wanted, make a case for it on the appropriate talk page, after notifying the appropriate wikiproject (no, it's not appropriate—if a writer's religion is significant, describe that in the article without a meaningless and potentially misleading label in the infobox). Misguided editors view an empty field in an infobox as a challenge to be filled with the closest available label, leading to unhelpful additions of tidbits that are not considered sufficiently significant for treatment in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge. It is always appropriate to consolidate template implementations as there are too many templates to effectively maintains as more advanced concepts are employed; microformats being just one example. The choice as to whether some specific filed is appropriate for an article is something to be determined at that article not by taking it off the table for all (writers, in this case). Alarbus (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with always as that would lead to the one and only "infobox whatever" I already alluded to, while I agree that we shouldn't have thousands of infobox templates and that many minor ones can be merged. But infobox writer is not a minor one, being used in over 13,000 articles and it is much easier to maintain as long it has a reasonably contained scope. Infobox person is already (IMO) a generic "monster" template with an overwhelming number of parameters, which would make it much harder to add an infobox to a writer, with fields like "net_worth", "height", "weight", "television", "successor", "criminal_penalty" bla bla, all having to be sorted out each time it is used. --Elekhh (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You going to badger everyone who supports deleting this redundant template? It is redundant. Your "one template to rule them all" strawman is just that. You should be less disruptive. Alarbus (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • May I ask for
        WP:CIVIL ? Thank you. --Elekhh (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • I happen to believe that forgoing that template for one of your own crafting was an inappropriate edit; i.e. disruptive to the goals of the project. Nothing uncivil about that. Alarbus (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe should have linked to the more specific
            WP:DISRUPTIVE. I still don't see how that edit can be considered disruptive, and why discussing the merits of an architecture related navigation box would belong here. If you disagree with that edit, should raise your concerns at Template talk:Architecture of Europe. --Elekhh (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • It's not an attack, either. It's an example of you intent on moving things away from standardised templates, which is exactly what use of this writer template is about. This is going to close with Thumperward folding it all into a module within person as described below. We can all go home now. Alarbus (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please stop miss-characterising my edits! Only because I disagree that it would be "always appropriate to consolidate template implementations" does not mean that I am always against it. I made that very clear from the beginning. I also made it clear in my argumentation above that beyond standardisations there are other things to consider such as encyclopaedic content and usability. In this case I am the opinion that if the proposed standardisation is resulting in reduced usability and increased spamming, than is not worth doing it, as it will not improve the encyclopaedia as such. Is fine if you have different opinion, but please stop attacking me, and address the arguments instead. --Elekhh (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • [time-waste]. Alarbus (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • "if the proposed standardisation is resulting in reduced usability and increased spamming". There is no evidence of either. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Hmm, there is no evidence of the opposite either. Those concerns have been however expressed by numerous editors, and I guess as in my case, were based on own experience. One could possibly investigate the benefits/dis-benefits of merging
                    Template:Infobox actor a year ago. Did it lead to more or less frequent use of the infobox in new articles. Were there more problems or less problems regarding the use of inappropriate fields, etc. --Elekhh (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
                    ]
                    • "there is no evidence of the opposite either" Why would there be? The rationale for this merger is not "to reduce spamming". No problems resulting from merging {{
                      Infobox actor}} have been reported, to my knowledge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
                      ]
                      • That {{
                        Infobox actor}} redirects to {{Infobox person}} is an excellent precedent. Unless the wiki ended, which (looks;) it didn't. Alarbus (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
                        ]
  • {{Infobox writer}} is a minor variation on {{Infobox person}}. The number of instances is immaterial. There are writers with notable wealth, television careers and/ or criminal convictions, are there not? It's also possible for, say, a literature project to provide a pro-forma with only the most-use fields. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • @me? It does seem a minor variation, and I'd be ok with the possibilty of goosing person to add (whatever). Are you more intent on an explicit redirect than a wrapper/module as Thumperward is saying? Anyway, the decision to use a fieled from person in a writer article should be available and be decided on a per article basis, not by force-precluding it in code. Alarbus (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was @Elekhh ("infobox writer is not a minor one…"), apologies for mis-indenting. But yes, I'm against force-precluding by code. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• {{infobox person}} has module support: as a sensible halfway house, {{infobox writer}} could be adjusted to work as a module. That gains us all the benefits of a merge (i.e. that any field from either of the present infoboxes can be used) while still maintaining a degree of encapsulation for the writer fields. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Virtually every field in 'writer is also in 'person. How would using modules help? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The ones which actually pertain to writing (i.e. the thing that a writer is usually most famous for) are not. This would reduce duplication (as once existing transclusions are updated the overlapping fields can be removed from {{infobox writer}}) while ensuring that {{infobox person}} is not filled with parameters which are only used on a small subset of its transclusions. In the long run, I'd hope for all "career" infoboxes to move to the module system, which will massively reduce duplication without requiring {{infobox person}} to be a superset of every possible career set. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was one of those who argued in favour of such modules, but in this case the differences are trivial. Which fields do you have in mind, and now may of them are there? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Period", "Subjects", "Literary movement" don't seem to have any parallels in the persnon box. Nor should they, as they pertain solely to writers (well, the first two could also apply to artists, but they are not "general" as such). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • {{Infobox person}} has |years_active= and |genre=; but even so, three extra fields are not sufficient to warrant two infoboxes; nor even a new module. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can live with Chris' module approach. It's more work, but he's offering. Alarbus (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: On G. K. Chesterton, who we describe in prose as a "Catholic theologian", the use of {{Infobox writer}} doesn't allow us to mention that in his infobox; though we do say there that his writing included "Christian apologetics". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just include "Catholic theologian" in the quite liberal "Occupation" field of {{Infobox writer}} and be done with it? Dahn (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • In the discussions that reject the addition of field religion to infobox writer, there is some discussion of how such cases should be handled, as well as why it is highly undesirable to have a field religion. Further thought would likely reveal how to handle other cases not covered by that discussion. --Pi zero (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I refer you to my above comments on this issue? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly which of your earlier remarks do you perceive as particularly relevant to this particular branch of the discussion tree? It sounds as if you may be thinking about me the same thing I've been thinking about you (proving that communication can be confoundingly difficult even when both parties are making a real effort) — each of us thinking the other might not have been reading what we wrote. --Pi zero (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "I don't believe that the wider community has reached consensus that religion is a valid field in one of these infoboxes but not the other." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah! That explains why it didn't leap out at me: I'd already addressed that earlier point (a different instance of it, but still). You said you couldn't parse my reply, and I wasn't immediately sure what to do about your parsing difficulty. The following two things are not the same:
            • The community has reached consensus that x is not allowed.
            • The community has not reached consensus that x is allowed.

          Of the infinite variety of things that might be done, very few of them have been explicitly allowed by consensus; but also, in the larger scheme of things, few of them have been explicitly disallowed by consensus, either.

          You are, I suspect, reckoning that if there is a consensus to include religion in infobox person, that implies a consensus to include it in all infoboxes for classes of people. But that is circular reasoning: Let A be the following proposition: "all fields appropriate for infobox person are necessarily appropriate for all infoboxes for classes of people". By assuming A, you reach the conclusion that there is consensus for A. But I don't see that there is any such consensus unless one starts by assuming A (and I consider A to be false). --Pi zero (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

          • "You are, I suspect, reckoning that if there is a consensus to include religion in infobox person, that implies a consensus to include it in all infoboxes for classes of people." - No, I'm not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not merge; instead Improve the Writer template. It the templates for Author and Person are nearly identical, we should obviously improve the former, by expanding it as appropriate. -The Gnome (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're missing the point; writer is redundant in that it's a lot of code that also present in person in a *better* form. Duplication requires extra work that typically does not occur. Articles on writers will benefit from the current better implementation of person as well as all future work done one it. Alarbus (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very good idea. at least use Infobox person inside infobox writer's code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal on the table here isn't to use Infobox person inside infobox writer's code. That would retain the existing restrictions on what fields are available in infobox writer, and off hand I can't think of any reason to object to it. However, the proposal we're discussing here is completely different from that. --Pi zero (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging will have the smae result. I don't think we should lose any fields from the existing infobox. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you mean something different by "use Infobox person inside infobox writer's code" than what I would mean by those words. The issue here is that merging the two templates would force infobox writer to allow fields that have been pointedly rejected for infobox writer. There isn't any question of losing any fields that infobox writer already has. --Pi zero (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge per the same "monster template" comments made already. However, I wouldn't be opposed to making
  Join WP Japan! 07:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Take a look at what Thumperward is proposing, above. Module support by person. Amounts to what you're suggesting, no? Alarbus (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge. We shouldn't support giant infoboxes for all people. Infobox writer is a perfectly valid and useful one with lots of literature-specific fields. - Darwinek (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "We shouldn't support giant infoboxes for all people" Nor is that proposed, so your comment is a
    Straw man argument. Can you list the "lots of literature-specific fields" in that template but not {{Infobox person}}?? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Oppose merge -- if simplicity and low maintenance is the goal, use the KISS principle. The less in a template, the faster it composes and the easier it is to apply, use, and maintain. I wish we could merge the nominator... with common sense. // FrankB 07:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge – Turning "unwieldy and confusing" to "incredibly unwieldy and confusing" is not progress; it is symptomatic of OCD. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge - there's a good reason for the different forms of infoboxes. While there are some that should perhaps be merged because they are not well-implemented or maintained, this is not one of those.
  talk) 16:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose merge - Moving people from a tailor-made category to a big-box one that doesn't fit them is not a good way to make Wikipedia look better or browse better. No general reader would have trouble with the concept of different kinds of people having different kinds of infoboxes - it's why the page on David Markson where I saw notification of this debate doesn't have a field on who preceded him as President of the United States. This idea seems to hail from that constituency who are more interested in tinkering with the organisation of information than in contributing information. I always try to consider what a page looks like to people who come here for information rather than to edit themselves; Wikipedia is a work in progress, but if an article looks like a building site, and is covered in jargon and housekeeping notes, I don't want to read it. This fidgety nonsense is defacing countless articles. --Chips Critic (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The merge template would look no different, to the general reader, to the current writer template. Please provide an example of an article using {{
    WP:CIVIL? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • That you seem to think the general reader is blind explains a great deal. As does the fact that you can't ask me to be civil - which I was being in any case - but instead stiltedly link me a policy page. The fidgety nonsense I was talking about was the attempt to delete a perfectly good template, not the proposed replacement itself, which would fall into the category of 'baggy, half-formed nonsense'. To be plainer: the link for this discussion appears above hundreds of writers' infoboxes, including on terrific articles like those on Henry James and Kathy Acker, and such disruption should at least lead to an argument, which you don't really have. --Chips Critic (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh:

Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 17
Born	(1877-11-03)3 November 1877 Rybna
Died	4 February 1938(1938-02-04) (aged 60) Kraków
Nationality	Polish
Notable works	Niespodzianka (Surprise) Judasz z Kariothu

Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 17
Born	(1877-11-03)3 November 1877 Rybna
Died	4 February 1938(1938-02-04) (aged 60) Kraków
Nationality	Polish
Notable work	Niespodzianka (Surprise) Judasz z Kariothu

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merger If anything, the "Person" infobox, which is ridiculously vague, should be considered for deletion. It most often gets in the way of coherent, specific, standardized infoboxes, and works with the strange assumption that anything and everything can fit into an infobox. Dahn (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Would a merge result in the removal of any of the Writer fields? If so, then I oppose a merge. If not, then it makes little difference to me. Nightscream (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not proposed to remove any of the "writer" fields; they all already exist, or have direct equivalents, in {{Infobox person}}; or (if there are any that do not) would be added to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if no fields would be removed. Semi-redundant templates are bad and confusing to editors, and if the data for "writer" is a strict subclass of the data for "person" then the template could be subsumed without problems. (How do we handle mismatched field names these days?) - David Gerard (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question/comment I've edited some on templates, but still newer to it and not exactly sure how the module support works. One infobox I deal with a lot is {{
  Infobox state senator}}) and work best with the tags made for it (that is, made to go with state senator), but also are capable of using pretty much all the tags of officeholder as well. I don't know if this is module-based, but if something like that is what you are meaning, I would not oppose. (Is that what Thumperward was meaning earlier?) The main question I have is: In the modules (in order to allay some fears of inclusion of non-consensus fields under the writer tag), would it be possible to specifically exclude or ignore fields? Perhaps that could ease the discussion for some. If not, I still look on it somewhat favorably for merging unless and until there is some real, true need to keep it separate. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose merge The point to having templates that are subsets of "monster" templates is to ease data entry for editors. as pointed out above, there are many, many fields in Person that are useless/annoying/consensus-violating that have been deliberately left out of Writer; changing this makes article editors' lives more difficult at the expense of Template maintainers, and I believe there are far more of the former than the latter. Net-win therefore falls on "leave it alone." --Geoff Capp (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would whoever is responsible for placing ‹ The template (Infobox writer) is being considered for merging. › at the top of articles please remove it? It's unsightly. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge Templates that are too general have too many parameters, and if we merge these, we may as well merge all the other person-type infoboxes, and that would get fairly messy, as well as confusing to new editors in particular. Brambleclawx 18:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox classical composer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Utterly redundant to {{Infobox person}}. Unused, not even on the articles used in its documentation, nor by members of the project who argued for its creation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved to templatespace more than year ago (21 April 2010‎), used only in sandboxes. Delete as redundant Bulwersator (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after replacing with person per my comments just above re Template:Infobox writer. Alarbus (talk) 07:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Solntsevskaya Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Standard table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Though it may have been in 2006, this is no longer a "standard table". 509 transclusions which could all be replaced trivially by {| class="wikitable". Co-nom with {{

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment {{
  close table}} is not tagged. In any case, it should redirect to {{!)}} as a redirect from a sensible name. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment I am
  template:close table to template:!), since it is not actually tagged by TfD, and it is a useful redirect name. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Tsar Bomba Delete. This is so-not-standard. Alarbus (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails as shorthand for code (and "close table" is 7 times worse). GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NBLMatchSummaryLine5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Saturn Award for Best Actor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Saturn Award for Best Actress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Saturn Award for Best Fantasy Film (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Saturn Award for Best Horror Film (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Saturn Award for Best Science Fiction Film (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

these templates have all been replaced by specific year-range award templates, so are no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• and so Delete. Good work. Alarbus (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.