Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 11

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/merge with {{Rail-interchange}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NYCS-bull-flex (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on four mainspace pages. Can be replaced with {{Rail-interchange}} or {{NYCS-bull-small}}. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The set of templates this is part of (Category:Station layout templates) is only used on about 10 mainspace pages. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support merging with Template:NYCS-bull-small. Epic Genius (talk) ± 12:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can this really be true when Template:NYCS-bull-small is being merged with Template:Rail-interchange? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This template's parent group was also nominated for deletion on 4 June. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• replace with {{Rail-interchange}} or {{NYCS-bull-small}} if feasible. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 22 June 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.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox PL constituency (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

This template should not be deleted or merged since there are unique characteristics and nomenclature not available within the generic template. It is the same reason why Template:Infobox UK constituency and Template:Infobox French constituency and Template:Infobox Grand National Assembly of Turkey electoral district exist. Plus we're in the middle of rolling it out due to the Fall 2015 General Elections in Poland. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Paging
  talk) 21:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• KEEP - Was on a Wikibreak when the prior TfD came up. The worst comment against it on the prior TfD was that only 3 pages were using the template. Ajh1492 (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant per previous TfD; the generic {{Infobox constituency}} is perfectly adequate. But this is not the forum, for what is actually a Deletion review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also assuming that Template:Infobox UK constituency and Template:Infobox French constituency and Template:Infobox Grand National Assembly of Turkey electoral district should be deleted for the same reasons? Ajh1492 (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Pigsonthewing: I assume the generic parliamentary constituency infobox has the European options already and the one or two Poland-specific options have been added to the generic template, correct? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot in the infobox header (foreign language name, legislative entity name/link, etc.). Continuing downward Labels 1,2,7,8,9,10 need to get modified and tailored, not to mention adding the whole overlapping constituency section in Labels 27 & 29. If ALL constituency templates got merged into the generic template it would be horribly complex and long, thus defeating the main logic for an Infoblock template in the first place. There is a reason why the UK, FR and TR (and the PL) template exist. Ajh1492 (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep number of transclusions doesnt matter, and from the editors it sounds like it is not redundant. About the deletion reviews. Templates which earlier has been "kept" ends here all the time too. They should go to deletion review too. Christian75 (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep or rewrite as a wrapper for {{infobox constituency}} if it is indeed redundant. Frietjes (talk) 14:43, 22 June 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.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox T&W Metro station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Infobox T&W Metro station with Template:Infobox station.

There is no reason to have a separate and nearly identical infobox for every country and rail system.

Since the last nomination of {{Infobox T&W Metro station}}, closed as keep due to parameter issues, most of the missing parameters have been added to {{Infobox station}}, making the T&W infobox redundant except for |metrosince= (corollary |reopened= in {{Infobox station/sandbox}}), |escalator= (little-used, will probably not be merged as irrelevant) and the multiple usage fields (rarely used and in need of updating; can be replaced by built-in {{Rail pass box}} or multiple transclusions of it in |mpassengers=). Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 07:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why the generic, non-UK template? Why, once again, has this not been proposed to interested WikiProjects? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    Infobox GB station}} is also missing line and distance parameters and a subheader for the station type, which both the T&W and generic infoboxes have, as well as |escalator=. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete {{
  talk) 14:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, infobox station is broken; it doesnt center the title text. Christian75 (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    rint}} symbols make the header text very slightly off-centre does not make the whole template broken, and furthermore, is completely irrelevant to this merger discussion and should really be kept over at Template talk:Infobox station. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • To add, the T&W metro infobox hasn't even got a service icon.
      talk) 11:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • But its a good example why we should not merge everything to "one fits them all". I think we should not merge anything into template:infobox station until it is fixed. Christian75 (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @
          rint}} symbols to begin with. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
          ]
        • No, it's not a good example of that; this supposed issue has got nothing to do with the scope of {{
          talk) 14:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
          ]

• Good example or not; its an example where something worked (at least for some pages), and it was "fixed" - so now it doesnt work* for other pages (eg.
  Gentofte station). The idea that "one fits them all" doesnt work. (* doesnt work means looks ugly; the title "Gentofte" and "S-train station" are not centered). Christian75 (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Please explain what "one size fits all" has got to do with the icon at Gentofte and this discussion.
    talk) 16:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The nominator wants to merge a template into a unstable template. {{Infobox station}} is broken, and at the talk page I got the answer it was because of technical reasons. I am against merging anything into a broken template/module. Gentofte station illustrates that the template is broken. Christian75 (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Christian75: If the infobox really was "unstable" it wouldn't be template-protected. If you think it looks ugly and want the problem to be fixed somehow, then please continue the discussion at Template talk:Infobox station where you started it. Not here; the header text being 10px off-centre is entirely irrelevant here because the infobox nominated for merger does not need to use it and has never used anything like it. (Is it even necessary to have both |type= and the symbols?) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep for now, but we should start by rewriting it as a frontend for {{infobox station}} then re-examine. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 22 June 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.

The result of the discussion was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Delaware counties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unneeded template for three counties, the three counties are linked from a section in {{Delaware}} as is done for all other states. Dough4872 03:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unused and redundant template that navigates only 3 articles. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant, unused, and a
  WP:CFORK of {{Delaware}}96.52.0.249 (talk) 01:18, 15 June 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.

The result of the discussion was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Sunset Tree tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and offers no navigational benefit. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unused, per nomination. Would someone care to add Template:Heretic Pride tracks to this nomination as well?96.52.0.249 (talk) 01:26, 15 June 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.