Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 11



Template:Infobox college sports rivalry

 * 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 merge or delete. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Infobox college sports rivalry

Redundant to the more general infobox sports rivalry. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;oppose proposed merge and deletion. This might appear to be a likely candidate for a merge at first glance, but it's not.  The field functions are different, and this template was specifically tailored to accommodate sports rivalries across multiple different American college sports.  Furthermore, the field functionality is far better and more flexible than the proposed surviving template.  If anything, the merge should be proposed in the opposite direction, thus preserving all of the flexibility and functionality of this template.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;Dirtlawyer1 said it all. Jweiss11 (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;Agree with the others. If anything infobox sports rivalry should be deleted. ben_b (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Shock horror, three college football editors turn up to defend this in lockstep within minutes of WP:CFB being notified. (See the long and glorious teeth-pulling history of getting the various college sports projects to recognise the existence of the rest of the encyclopedia for details). The semantic difference between these templates is minimal, and the output is nearly identical. The general template both supports more data and supports everything that the college one does, so it is a red herring that the college template is "tailored" for anything. It should never have been forked in the first place, and with only 25 transclusions at present this is the right time to reincorporate any beneficial changes made to it into the original template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There should be some discussion of merging these two templates. Here is a good place. I am not a coder so I don't know which should be kept.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am more than happy to do the required conversion work (turning the college template into a wrapper for the general one) myself, and indeed considered doing so silently before deciding to bring it for central discussion. The work would take me ten minutes, including a tea break. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply to Chris. Chris, you need to dial it down a notch. One more instance of gratuitous nastiness, incivility or implied accusation of bad faith, and I will reluctantly file the ANI and initiate an RfC regarding your history of behavior.  I know that you are relatively young compared to many Wikipedia administrators, but I ask that you maintain a civil tone and assume good faith, as all Wikipedia editors are obligated to do.  One might think that administrators, including yourself, would try to maintain an even higher standard of conduct given their familiarity with, and daily enforcement of, these core Wikipedia policies.
 * As for notifying the various sports projects that use this template, one might have thought you would have done so given that this template was already the subject of one previous TfD less than six months ago (Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 27)&mdash;a TfD in which you participated. As you may now recall, that TfD was relatively contentious because various college sports editors (whom you now accuse of bad faith and canvassing by implication) were pushing for a more uniform rivalry infobox to be used across all American college sports.  The present template is the result of various compromises and a merge that came from that previous TfD.
 * As for this template's ultimate usage, it is intended to uniformly replace the wikitable "infoboxes" and other templates now in use on nearly 300 American college sports rivalry articles. See Category:College sports rivalries in the United States.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I might also add that one of the "three college football editors" upon whom you remark with such disdain was, in fact, notified directly by you of this discussion: . Ironically, it was your notification on Jweiss' talk page that caught my attention and drew me to this TfD.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not the notification which is the problem (there was nothing wrong with it, and I apologise for any implication my comment had of such), but the attitude within the project in question which tends strongly towards the same editors supporting one another's comments over and over in these discussions.
 * The previous discussion was over a different merge, and I supported it for the same reason that I support this one. The semantic difference between a "college rivalry" and any other sports rivalry is marginal, and the output is nearly identical (I have now whipped up a sandbox which wraps infobox sports rivalry uses the same infobox-based system as infobox sports rivalry and closely mimics its output: the only discrepancy is in the team headers, but even that could be massaged with only a little more effort). The distinction between American sports and other sports is artificial here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record I commented here because I saw it in my watchlist that Infobox college sports rivalry was edited. Also I don't have any recollection of interacting with any of these other editors previously (but probably have) and I work on a number of different projects so find the comment on not recognizing the rest of the encyclopedia uncalled for. As for making Infobox college sports rivalry a wrapper of something and simplifying the code to use standardized templates I am all for that. See my wishlist for that template on its talk page. --ben_b (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Chris, am I missing something, or does your sandbox mockup include all of the exact same fields as the existing template? As proposed, it would continue to be transcluded by the use of the "Infobox college sports rivalry" template name, and it would continue to have a separate instructions and example page? If so, I don't pretend to understand what coding advantages the proposed merge would serve, but if all of the existing fields, separate formatting examples, and separate user instructions page are preserved, I would not object. The present template was the result of a series of contentious negotiations and compromises among WP:CFB and WP:CBB editors. Many of us believed that the previously used free-form wikitable "infoboxes" had become ridiculously large, had evolved to include too much trivia over time, allowed individual editors too much flexibility to insert garbage stats and trivia, and needed to be reined in. Hence the push for rivalry infobox uniformity (including less trivia content) that gained consensus within the relevant WikiProjects. I would object to anything that reopens the established consensus or permits individual editors to insert additional "optional" fields that remain embedded in the underlying coding. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The sandbox code is just a proof-of-concept to show that moving the template to the same codebase as the original template is workable. I haven't yet sub-classed it. However, a wrapper would only be temporary: the aim would be to substitute all existing transclusions so that we would have only one template. Maintaining wrapper code like this is, as you say, hardly less effort than maintaining two entirely separate codebases, but there is no established need to do that here. The original codebase already includes the majority of the features of infobox college sports rivalry (I'll add the rest myself) while also being flexible enough to accommodate sports from outside of the American college circuit. The additional fields do not include the sort of "freeform" capability that you're concerned about (I too am firmly in favour of uniformity in infoboxes), so this isn't a step backwards as regards the original merges from several months ago. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Infobox sports rivalry/sandbox now fully supports all of infobox college sports rivalry's features. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge Merge to the more generalized template. There's nothing about college sports rivalries that cann;t be incorporated ito that template--GrapedApe (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC) 
 * Delete after "merge" (short check: not really much to change as Thumperward already mentioned). I know that template was merged a few months ago, but 28 transclusions vs. 200 transclusions about the same topic should be merged. mabdul 08:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * merge, no reason why we need two templates, as demonstrated. Frietjes (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: per dirtlawyer p  b  p  23:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: In my opinion, infobox sports rivalry is more about a rivalry event than the rivalry. For example, the template seems to work for the Old Oaken Bucket, which is a specific annual event between Indiana and Purdue, but it doesn't work as well as infobox college sports rivalry to educate an observer about the basics of the historic rivalry. City boy77 (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep NThomas (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * this is not a vote, so could you explain why they should not be merged? Frietjes (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.

Unused A*/meta/color and A*/meta/shortname

 * 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) 23:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agrarian Centrist Party/meta/color
 * Agrarian Centrist Party/meta/shortname
 * Agudat Yisrael/meta/shortname
 * Ahdut HaAvoda/meta/shortname
 * Aitaira/meta/shortname
 * Akhand Bharti/meta/color
 * Akhand Bharti/meta/shortname
 * Akhil Bharatiya Desh Bhakt Morcha/meta/color
 * Akhil Bharatiya Desh Bhakt Morcha/meta/shortname
 * Akhil Bharatiya Loktantra party/meta/color
 * Akhil Bharatiya Loktantra party/meta/shortname
 * Akhil Bharatiya Lok Tantrik Alp-Sankhyak Jan Morcha/meta/color
 * Akhil Bharatiya Lok Tantrik Alp-Sankhyak Jan Morcha/meta/shortname
 * Akhil Bharatiya Rajarya Sabha/meta/color
 * Akhil Bharatiya Rajarya Sabha/meta/shortname
 * Aktiv Demokrati/meta/color
 * Aktiv Demokrati/meta/shortname
 * Alberta Alliiance Party/meta/shortname
 * Alberta New Democrats/meta/color
 * Alberta New Democrats/meta/shortname
 * Alianza Social/meta/color
 * Alianza Social/meta/shortname
 * Alignment (political party)/meta/color
 * Alignment (political party)/meta/shortname
 * Alliance for Barangay Concerns/meta/shortname
 * Alliance for Change (Croatia)/meta/shortname
 * Alliance for Sweden/meta/color
 * Alliance for Sweden/meta/shortname
 * Alliance for the Great Change/meta/color
 * Alliance for the Great Change/meta/shortname
 * Alliance for the Republic/meta/shortname
 * Alliance of Progressives/meta/shortname
 * All Kerala M.G.R. Dravida Munnetra Party/meta/color
 * Al Wasat Party/meta/shortname
 * Amal Movement/meta/shortname
 * Ambedkarist Republican Party/meta/shortname
 * Ambedkar Samaj Party/meta/shortname
 * American Party (United States)/meta/shortname
 * AMN/meta/shortname
 * A New era/meta/shortname
 * Ang Kapatiran Party/meta/shortname
 * Animalist Party/meta/shortname
 * Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam/meta/color
 * Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam/meta/shortname
 * Anti-Administration Party/meta/shortname
 * Antigua and Barbuda Democratic Movement/meta/color
 * Antigua and Barbuda Democratic Movement/meta/shortname
 * Antigua Caribbean Liberation Movement/meta/color
 * Antigua Caribbean Liberation Movement/meta/shortname
 * Antigua Democratic Labour Party/meta/color
 * Antigua Democratic Labour Party/meta/shortname
 * Antigua Freedom Party/meta/color
 * Antigua Freedom Party/meta/shortname
 * Antigua National Party/meta/color
 * Antigua National Party/meta/shortname
 * Antigua People's Party/meta/color
 * Antigua People's Party/meta/shortname
 * Anti Ministerial/meta/color
 * Arab Socialist Union (Syria)/meta/shortname
 * Aralar/meta/color
 * Aralar/meta/shortname
 * Ashfield Independents/meta/shortname
 * Association for Somogy/meta/color
 * Asturian Bloc/meta/shortname
 * Atlantica Party/meta/color
 * Atlantica Party/meta/shortname
 * Australian Democrats/meta/color
 * Australian Democrats/meta/shortname
 * Australian Greens/meta/color
 * Australian Greens/meta/shortname
 * Australians Against Further Immigration/meta/color
 * Australians Against Further Immigration/meta/shortname
 * Australian Party/meta/shortname
 * Autonomous State Demand Committee/meta/shortname
 * Awami Party/meta/color

unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * comment, seems uncontroversial. if these are deleted, we should just do the rest, rather having two dozen more discussions. Frietjes (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.

Template:Pendragon band

 * 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) 23:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Pendragon band

navigates nothing. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.

Template:Party Swatch
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 23:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Party Swatch

old and unused.198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.

Template:Paris streetbox test
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Reason G2: test page. WOSlinker (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Paris streetbox test

unused test. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.

Template:Chinese cheeses
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 23:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Chinese cheeses

Delete. Only four entries and at least one is of dubious notability. Also, it describes a Tibetan cheese as Chinese. That is wrong. So that leaves us with two entries. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC) <hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Convert to list article a list article can describe why each entry is considered "Chinese" (ie. Tibetan because Tibet is territorily administered as part of China) 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be a short list. It is better off in the Chinese cuisine article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It would not be better in Chinese cuisine, since it would add undue weight to cheese in Chinese cuisine, which is not a focus of Chinese cuisine in any way. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What point would a list of three items be? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see where a four item list is a type of article that is disallowed. (There are four items on the template) The examples at WP:LIST use three entries. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We should not be obliged to specifically "disallow" every piece of bad writing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * if WP:LIST uses three item lists for examples, then anything three or more items long is implicitly accepted by Wikipedia. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why not merging all country specific cheeses templates as listed in the doc? <span style="font-family:Courier New; display:inline; border:#009 1px dashed; padding:1px 6px 2px 7px; white-space:nowrap; font-size:smaller; color:#000000;">mabdul 12:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 04:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * WP:NENAN. This micro-list can easily be added directly to a central article if desired. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It can be converted to a standalone list article, which can expand without needing articles on other cheeses to navigate to. It definitely should not be merged into Chinese cuisine, since cheese is not a focus of Chinese cuisine, and would add undue weight to cheese in that article. Whether there is some other article the list could appear in, do you have some suggestion? 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * List of cheeses already has what appears to be a more comprehensive list. A standalone article would be farcical. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.