Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 2

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:CCSA Member Clubs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no article on the template's topic and at least one of the linked articles makes no mention of the organization. ...William 22:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable navbox topic unsupported by stand-alone article or list per
  WP:NAVBOX criteria. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Dirtlaywer.
  talk) 10:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC) What's a "laywer"? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Oh didn't you know? That's the original English English spelling before it was corrupted by them bloody Yanks.
    talk) 00:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep. Although I do find it troubling that the nav box was created without a corresponding article on the organization (and I checked to make sure the article had not been deleted: it hasn't), with one redlinked exception, the listed "members" of the CCSA are, in fact, members of that organization. So the question I ask myself is this: If there are a number of members, at least some of which are apparently notable enough to have their own articles in Wikipedia, is the larger membership organization also notable? The answer, of course, is that their notability does not confer notability on the organization they each are members of. So the next question I asked myself is whether the organization itself is notable? The answer is that it might be. The organization apparently coordinates a number of swimming meets and related activities. Although I haven't looked for news coverage of those events, they are the type of event that local news programs like to cover for the "human interest" angle, and the coverage may be out there. But even a (hypothetical) dab of local coverage isn't enough, by itself, to make the organization notable enough for Wikipedia. So instead of looking for notability of the parent organization, I asked myself if the template is useful. This is where it shines. Any local user who is interested in any of these organizations because of their relationship to swimming would likely be interested in the other organizations in the nav box as well. This particular nav box appears to be the only way the organizations are linked. Some of them are country clubs, and are related that way. Some of them are cricket clubs, and have that connection. All of them have swimming available for the members, and apparently compete in local swimming meets. Of course, someone is bound to respond that this is what categories are for, but currently there are individuals who are bent on removing categories from every page they are attached to, if the category isn't a defining characteristic, and there is no review process for this unless an interested editor happens to notice the change. (Also, in my opinion, nav boxes are more intuitive than categories for new Wikipedia readers.)Etamni | ✉ | ✓  20:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • talk) 21:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • There's no evidence that CCSA -- the primary subject of the navbox -- is a notable topic. This is really one of the more problematic sports-related navboxes I've seen recently. Not only is there no supporting article or list per the
      WP:NAVBOX criteria, not only is there no evidence of the primary topic, it also appears that several, if not all, of the handful of linked country clubs are probably not notable, either. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete—listify or use categories as appropriate, but the navbox is not appropriate per cited guidelines. Imzadi 1979 → 23:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, better covered by a list article or category. Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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 2015 September 16. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Wikipedia campus ambassador (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{

• Tentative Delete This one is used quite a bit on user pages, but based on the random sample of users, it's not clear that they needed the (slight) additional functionality. There is a regional bias in the use, and I suspect that many of the users simply copied what someone else was doing, not understanding that there may have been a better template available. Also, despite the fact that each use of the template has a notice regarding this discussion, none of the users of the template have (so far) voiced any concerns about the potential deletion. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  19:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with |classes=.
  talk) 17:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

).

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.

• Template:Infobox road small (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox road (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox road small with Template:Infobox road.
Stylistic fork; compactness should be achieved by omitting unnecessary parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "compactness should be achieved by omitting unnecessary parameters"? I ask because I foresee more complexity added to an already esoteric template just to achieve the small version. –Fredddie™ 21:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose—there's a lot more to each of the templates than the nominator seems to know. Merging them would add unnecessary complexity for no outward benefit. The smaller box is not the same width and doesn't just "omit[] unnecessary parameters": it has a different scheme, by design, for indicating the location of a highway instead of termini/intermediate junctions/countries/states/provinces/counties/cities/villages/etc.... A merged template would require complex coding to render at the desired size and shut off all of the components of the main template that are intentionally excluded from display. That would stymy the current work in progress at converting the main template to Lua. In the future, I would suggest that the proposer should be so kind as to drop a note on template talk pages about his ideas before rushing off to TfD/TfM with a half-cocked idea. I don't foresee much support from those who actually work on maintaining these two templates. Imzadi 1979 → 23:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I oppose most template merging because it is better to have more options than less. This is no exception. Small roads should have a different infobox from major highways. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PointsofNoReturn: this isn't for "small roads" vs. "major highways". The one is for use as the main infobox at the top of an article while the other is for use in other sections like on M-553 (Michigan highway), or repeated in lists like Business routes of Interstate 96. The "small" in the name is for a smaller visual footprint and a specifically limited set of parameters to enforce that smaller footprint. (And in at least one case, a different parameter to replace several others to enforce that smaller footprint.) Because the former M-554 is merged into a section of the M-553 article or the various BL/BS I-96s are merged into a single article, they get the smaller box. A different business route, like M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan), has a stand-alone article and uses the full infobox. the TL;DR version: it's not about types of highways, but types of usages. Imzadi 1979 → 04:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)\[reply]
    • Thank you for the correction. I still oppose though because this template is useful for describing small or non-existent roads for which the full template is not necessary. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Infobox road small has a specific function to be a smaller version of Infobox road that is more suited for
  RCS lists and for small subsections describing a route in a main article of another route in which the regular Infobox road would be space consuming. Dough4872 00:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose, per User:Dough4872 and User:Imzadi1979. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per "wrong place, wrong time." Infobox road small will probably use Infobox road as at least part of its backend at some point as we/I see fit, but that point is not even close yet. Regardless of the backend coding, however, Infobox road small should always be a separate template with separate styling. As noted by Dough and Imzadi, Infobox road small has a distinct role on road articles. -happy5214 05:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (General reply to all of the above) Properly configured, an instance of {{Infobox road}} would take up no ore room than the current {{Infobox road small}}. No=one has advanced any other cogent argument as to why two infoboxes are needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, seems to be a duplicate of {{Infobox street}} anyway (eg: Park Lane). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But {{
    talk) 20:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Oppose; I've looked at pages that use it well, e.g. the Business Routes section of Interstate 83 and the Special Routes section of M-60 (Michigan highway), and it works much better in these places than the bigger infobox would. I'm also concerned about the use of two infoboxes in the same article with different information. If the York business route for I-83 is given the normal infobox, the stupidest person reading it will understand that "Location: York PA" and "Existed: 1957-present" applies to the business route, not to the entire interstate. Computers, however, aren't as smart as stupid people: I fear that having multiple primary infoboxes with different information will make the article less machine-readable. It's easy to instruct your computer to treat each instance of {{Infobox road small}} separately, thereby understanding that the M-60 small infoboxes are for different roads, neither of them the primary topic of the article, but it seems like we'd induce a bit more confusion if your computer is faced with three {{Infobox road}}s on M-60 and two on I-83. Nyttend (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    talk) 12:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • You can always have the bot look at the MediaWiki source code (something like <ALTD>E<ALTU><ENTER><CTRLD>F<CTRLU> in
      one basic kind of programming) instead of relying on the rendered text or the HTML or anything like that. Nyttend (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Oppose. While I do believe these templates could be merged, I do not think that's an optimal outcome. A "proper configuration" is a gross understatement of the amount of shoehorning that would need to be done. Adding the half-dozen or so (I didn't count, but I'm taking an educated guess) parserfunctions needed to whittle {{Infobox road}} down to the {{Infobox road small}} footprint would add to page load times. A page like List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas (1–99) with over 100 instances of {{Infobox road small}} would frustrate some readers. The small infobox was specifically designed to present the relevant information about a highway without the bloat, for lack of a better word, of the main infobox. –Fredddie™ 23:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Compactness should be achieved by omitting unnecessary merge proposals. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Different applications, different appearances, different parameters; bones being picked again most likely (but I won't touch that with a 30 foot pole). Those above me have also neatly surmised the same opinion as I. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry to say, but proposal should have been sensible, saying that "compactness should be achieved by omitting unnecessary parameters" is not worth. No parameter is unnecessary, if intention of nominator is to "omit" some parameters then I will surely oppose this. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  03:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will add to my comment, if proposal would have been like this way, "We use same Template:Infobox settlement for both Metrocity and small villages, on same basis if we merge these road templates for universal use for any kind of road without removing any parameter then that will be nice". In this case I would have supported the merge, but I'm against removing of any kind of parameter as said by nominator.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  03:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  talk) 12:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose. After reviewing the examples given where the templates are used together the way they were intended to work, I think that merging them has the potential to create unnecessary complexity. If someone experienced in template design wants to create an easy-to-use replacement template that would fulfill both purposes, and could demonstrate that the process of migrating the information to the new template would be seamless, I could support such a merge. As is, there is no real cost to keeping both separate templates for now. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  19:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the oppose vote that wasn't signed; while they *could* be merged I don't think that is the right direction to go. --Rschen7754 23:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC) Apparently Fredddie's vote.[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

).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox presidential library (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox library}} (or possibly {{Infobox building}}). Limited potential for use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What do we do with |manager=, |dedicated= and |rededicated=?
  talk) 14:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Depends which template is the eventual replacement, In either case, I'd link to the dedicatee in the title, rather than as a separate parameter; like this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{
      talk) 10:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • For dedication, |established= in the library infobox; |inauguration_date= for buildings. "rededication" seems crufty. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nuance is lost, but I can live with it. Weak delete.
          talk) 11:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
          ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

).

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. Concerns have been addressed with the production of a demo version. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox VFA season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox Australian rules football season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox VFA season with Template:Infobox Australian rules football season.
As proposed when the VFA template was created. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As ever with this sort of thing, I don't think anyone objects to a merger on theoretical grounds. The problem is how this always plays out in practice. After a month or two at TfD it inevitably gets closed as merge, generally regardless of any genuine concerns. It's then stuck in a holding pattern for months before a quick and dirty fix that no one quite thinks is optimal is rolled out simply to get it out of the TfD holding cell. Then the people who propose such things can pat themselves on the back as job well done, despite the template never actually working as we had been assured it would. How about before closing this as merge someone actually creates a mockup at Template:Infobox Australian rules football season/sandbox or similar, so we can actually see what will happen? I recall when the AFL biography infoboxes were merged it ended up with editors having to fix thousands of articles by hand, despite the assurances that a bot would be able to do it when it was at TfD. Obviously this isn't nearly as big an issue as that because the VFA season infobox is only used on a few articles, but the principle remains the same. Jenks24 (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged with
    talk) 10:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Oppose In the same vein as Jenks24, all this will do is remove a template that is working perfectly well, and attempt to code it into some other template which will introduce potential for error, and eliminate the flexibility needed for unique features of the VFA like the multiple divisions, the Centenary Cup in 1977 VFA season, etc. Aspirex (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No flexibility will be reduced, if the templates are merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for that, Alakzi. I worry a bit that the more gets merged into the "Infobox Australian rules football season", the harder it is for mere mortals to actually use it, but in this case it works well enough. Weak support. Jenks24 (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

).

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.

• Template:Infobox NHL Stadium Series (4 games) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Given that it is unused I am inclined to support the nominator's deletion rationale, but I am curious to hear from the creator, User:SecretName101, what the intended purpose of this template was/is. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the standard notice was sent during the nomination process, I've explicitly asked the template creator to comment here. It looks like a lot of work went into this template, but it's not clear when/if anyone was planning to use it. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  18:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused.
  talk) 10:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. See User talk:SecretName101 where template creator stated it is not needed and can be deleted. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  05:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per
  WP:G7. See user talk page link in Etmani's comment above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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.

• Template:Infobox NBL Canada team season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use. Redundant to {{Infobox basketball club season}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I wasn't aware the older template existed when I created {{Infobox NBL Canada team season}} TempleM (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per
  WP:G7: template creator TempleM requests deletion immediately above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Speedy deletion usually works better when the template isn't used.
    talk) 15:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • @Alakzi: under the circumstances, I think a substitution/replacement would be entirely appropriate, followed by a speedy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  18:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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.