Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 19

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 as unused Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pre-read (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; the proposal to go around using it seems to have died a while ago. -- Beland (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No Contest. as original creator.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. APerson (talk!) 03:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I like the idea, myself, though I only just heard of it. The project is already defunct, unfortunately, so there is little reason to keep the template. —PC-XT+ 08:23, 10 January 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 all as non-championship squads per precedent. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iran Squad 2000 FIFA Futsal World Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Iran Squad 2004 FIFA Futsal World Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Iran Squad 2008 FIFA Futsal World Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Iran Squad 2012 FIFA Futsal World Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

non-notable squad. Frietjes (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - Non-championship football squads. None won championships, none finished among the top four. None are supported by stand-alone articles or lists covering the specific squad, one of the basic criteria per WP:NAVBOX. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iran Squad 1992 FIFA Futsal World Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

4th place squad. Frietjes (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iran Squad 2014 AFC Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

2nd place squad. Frietjes (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iran Squad 2012 AFC Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

3rd place squad. Frietjes (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2014 (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 as a navbox that doesn't nav Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TopGolf Locations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Related to TopGolf article, this template seems to be a precursor to creating lots more TopGolf articles. Currently the links are geographical. While 1 page on TopGolf seems ok (given that it's a pretty specific topic), having a multitude of them smacks of advertising. Adding locations could readily be achieved by extending the current article. Nigej (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a "Navbox" which does not navigate and is only in the one article with no possibility of adding more. The information should be inserted to the almost empty Locations section of the TopGolf article. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2014 (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 mark all historical Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RFC boilerplate 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:RFC boilerplate 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:RfC2subst (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct is now shut down. These templates were substitution templates and are not transcluded anywhere (except for the wrapper templates also nominated that merely add "subst" to the others). There should be no harm in deleting these Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not convinced that this does need to be deleted, or what purpose is served by starting deletion discussions for this type of thing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps mark historical? —PC-XT+ 00:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, mark historical - There's a lot of text here, and it looks like they collectively document a good lesson on how things should not be done. -- Beland (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2014 (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 Infobox university chancellor, after orphaning it by substituting it. Since this is a wrapper for Infobox officeholder in the first place, there is nothing to merge, and the conversion is complete by substitution. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox university chancellor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Infobox university chancellor with Template:Infobox officeholder.
The chancellor box was recently made a wrapper for the officeholder box, but apparently we have to have a merger debate before it can be Subst: and redirected. This should be done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Does the merger tag really need to be on Infobox officerholder, or perhaps more specifically, does it have to appear on every page that has it transcluded? It's affecting almost 85,000 articles. Number 57 22:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was not on the template, people would complain. It could be noincluded, but that is supposed to be for substituted templates only, according to Twinkle, so we may need to develop some consensus to do that. I would support noincluding in this case. —PC-XT+ 23:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not only should the notice not appear on every damn instance of the officeholder template, this discussion is a waste of time. Shouldn't we be writing an encyclopedia instead of eliminating templates? Chris Troutman (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can we please get the damn notification off every page that has this template. Unnecessary and very annoying. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 04:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know anything about templates, but I arrived here via a page for a major corporate CEO whose bio template is of the "officeholder" variety. Unless this CEO is an aberration, this template might be in too wide of use for the proposed merge. It obviously doesn't make sense to have a "university chancellor" template in use on corporate CEO pages. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The officeholder template would be the one used, as the other is only a wrapper of it. —PC-XT+ 23:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, okay. Thanks. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete — I believe the main question from the last discussion was whether several params needed merging, or could they use the blank parameters, instead, if needed. Looking at the tracking categories, I think the blank parameters are ok. Three examples are Carol Folt for salary, Richard C. Atkinson for workplace, and Nancy L. Zimpher for both. —PC-XT+ 23:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Get rid of that template notice Do what you need to do with the chancellor thing, but for the love of God, get rid of that damn template notice, noinclude it, do something. It is affect a whole mess of articles. Unfortunately, it is fully protected or I would have taken the damn thing off myself. Safiel (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seeing as I wasn't the only one concerned about the notice, I've removed it (using noinclude) from infobox officeholder. Number 57 09:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merging the chancellor template, as the officeholder template is part of Category:Politics and government infobox templates. That doesn't seem right, but I don't know the policies on this. I was brought here by a notice at the top of Carol T. Christ, who isn't in politics or government, that I am aware of. Eddymason (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Note: If there is a question for me, please "ping" me, as my watchlist automatically adds pages I edit, and became unmanageable after weighing in here. Eddymason (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]
  • The category of a template is not a reason not to merge it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could always add it to another category. —PC-XT+ 00:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Looks like a lot of unnecessary duplication. Add to Category:Universities and colleges infobox templates and Category:People infobox templates or just move to the latter. There's only two fields that are standardized by this over the other template, but it's such a mess if anyone cares to get salary information etc. systematically it's better to just write a style guide for this class of articles than to keep the extra template around. -- Beland (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - unnecessary duplication. -Zanhe (talk) 20:34, 17 January 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. There is consensus that there is a lot of overlap between these two templates, but some parameters, specifically ethnicity, rivals and allies, are found to be undesirable to have in a general organization infobox, and at the same time are sufficiently useful for a criminal organisation infobox not to want to lose them by a significant proportion of the people in this discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox criminal organization (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (423 transclusions)

Template:Infobox organization (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (16,086 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox criminal organization with Template:Infobox organization.
Some people felt the recent TfD discussion about the criminal org template should have been a merger proposal; so here it is.

The relevant parameters are |named after=, |founding_location=, |ethnicity= and |rivals=, all of which have their place for non-criminal organisations (e.g. Oxfam, named after Oxford Famine relief, founded in Oxford, England). For |years_active= we should use the more generic template's |formation= & |extinction=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is annoying.

Can we stop "The template Infobox organization is being considered for merging." from appearing at the top of each and every page --there are over 16,000 of them! -- that uses the target "infobox organization" infobox?

I think it suffices for it to appear on the criminal org infobox pages (at most). Desire to generate conversation on these 400-odd pages proposed to be changed doesn't warrant marring the tops of 16,000 other pages. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is annoying, but as I said in the above discussion, we are attempting to follow appropriate procedure. (You can see why in the previous discussions.) This is one of the questions about TfD process that appears hard to answer. —PC-XT+ 23:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There must be a way to remove that notice. Ask the tech boffins. Cite IAR. Anything. This is absurd. Can we at least stick it under the infobox? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per my previous !vote —PC-XT+ 23:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: I agree with User:Epeefleche, merge it ASAP to get the link off the top of these 16,000 articles. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as they share most parameters.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• No They are entirely distinct. The notification on pages is annoying as well.Ahmer Jamil Khan^Who?_Chat? 06:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they are not "entirely distinct"; they are largely the same, as demonstrated in the previous discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy it either way. I don't care which way. The possible incremental head-of-a-pin benefit from a possible merge is far outweighed by the immediate and evident cost of starting a process that leads to a ridiculous sentence marring the very top of the page of over 16,000 wikipedia pages -- pages which will remain the same whether the templates are merged or NOT. This is absurd. Epeefleche (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree (though the benefits of merging are significant); it wasn't me who required this process. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose if only because of sloppy execution of this merge discussion. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Bad TfD quality. -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The 16,000 uses of the base template are not affected at all by the merger, so I see no reason why all of them should be notified. This is not a merger of equals, just an accretion of a minor addition, so let's get the notice off of the {{Infobox organization}} pages at once. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 17:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether those 16000 should be notified is a point. But whether this deserves a merge-TfD: absolutely. Because: the proposal implies a change of the target template. That can not be enforced from a TfD outcome without consulting that template ('s followers). On top of this, the nom only grudgingly seems to admit that a parameter-issue overview should be included in the proposal (the earlier TfD in this failed). -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• don't merge for now, I would rather not see |rivals= and |ethnicity= added to {{infobox organization}}. I am imagining all the fabricated rivalries, and unsourced claims of ethnicity. however, |founding_location= and |named_for= seem to be of general use. Frietjes (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point. I would support a partial merge, then converting this to a wrapper or module, if that would be preferable. —PC-XT+ 23:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are all the "fabricated rivalries, and unsourced claims of ethnicity" in {{Infobox criminal organization}}? Where are all the fabricated, say, purposes or claims of methods, in {{Infobox organization}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - No rationale has been provided for a merge and things seem to work fine the way they are. Also, the notification on each organization infobox is disruptive. - MrX 04:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rationale for the merge is the standard one, described in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose |ethnicity= and |rivals= don't cross well enough to merge. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have articles about non-criminal organisations where both are relevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per arguments at the template's unsuccessful deletion discussion and because |ethnicity=, |rivals=, and |allies= do not cross well into Template:Infobox organization. - tucoxn\^talk 20:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The (somehwat POINTy) arguments there were that it was not a merger proposal. This is. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I have hidden the notice advertising this discussion on Template:Infobox organization in response to the many comments here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kudos. Thank you for restoring my faith, if not in humanity, then in the ability of sysops to lend an ear, and apply common sense. Much appreciated. Epeefleche (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Looks like the attributes on the criminal organization template are well-used. Many attributes on each template don't apply to the other type, so it seems easier for editors to keep them separate for now. -- Beland (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we have a separate Template:Infobox company which is probably more similar to the generic organization template, though the company template is much more heavily used than the criminal organization one. -- Beland (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Tucoxn. - SantiLak (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose there is obviously a use for the crim org box. Legacypac (talk) 22:17, 7 January 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.