Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 March 16



Template:Infobox burn event

 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Infobox burn event

Only ten transclusions. Redundant to Infobox recurring event. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, this seems to be completely redundant to recurring event, see a sample replacement here.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2014 (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:Infobox paranormal event

 * 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) 22:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Infobox paranormal event

Only two transclusions. Unused Redundant to Infobox event. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: Now orphaned. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * for anyone interested, see [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valentich_disappearance&diff=prev&oldid=602763970] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westall_UFO&diff=prev&oldid=602763634]. Frietjes (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2014 (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.

'Country at games' templates

 * 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 merge, but please let me know if there are any technical difficulties. As far as I can tell, these are mostly used within other templates, and (for the most part) you just need change to. However, there could be technical issues with merging them without adding a large amount of code to the main Infobox country at games (or significantly reducing any of the automated features of the individual templates). So, if there are any technical problems, let me know, and I can reconsider the closure. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Infobox Country Mediterranean Games
 * Infobox Country at the Universiade
 * Infobox Country SouthAm Games
 * Infobox Country Asian Para Games
 * Infobox Country Asian Games
 * Infobox Country All-Africa Games
 * Infobox Country Pan American Games
 * Infobox Commonwealth Youth Games Country

Each redundant to the more generic Infobox country at games, created when several other, similar templates were merged, and into which any required parameters should be merged. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 
 * Keep No idea about the rest, but Asian Games Infobox includes different things and it's different. it's more similar to Olympic infobox. Mohsen1248 (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Which things? Why could they not be merged? If you refer to the fields in the bottom half of the Infobox on, for example, Hong Kong at the 2006 Asian Games, they look more like a navbox, and so shouldn't be in an infobox anyway. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Those templates are not even similar and I'm not sure they are even mergable, (at least it won't be easy), what about Infobox country Olympics ? by this logic you should nominate this one too. and also this one Infobox World Aquatics Championships country and there are more. those templates listed for deletion work like Olympic infobox. and includes data for each country for each multi-sport event. I think if there is one redundant template here, its this Infobox country at games, it's not even better-designed at all. also all those templates are source for templates in this category, I can't see any reason to change things. Mohsen1248 (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Even a cursory glance shows a block of identical parameters in use; and the purpose of the nominated templates is palpably similar. The act of merging will be technically trivial, as evidenced by the previous mergers described. Other templates may or indeed may not be proposed for merger in future, there is no deadline and "other stuff exists" is routinely discounted as an argument for keeping templates. I note that you didn't answer my question; disregard my "navbox" comment; and that your "it's not even better-designed at all" claim is unsubstantiated.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I dont think I have  to answer any of your questions, I also didn't see any answer for my own question about Olympic template which is practically similar to these templates, you are not interrogating me. (you may think you are though but in fact you can't) I just explained my opinion on that, I think those templates are not  mergeable easily. and merging will cause many problems, wikipedia deletion guideline says "The template is redundant to a better-designed template", in my opinion  those multi-sports templates are better-disigned to that unused template. There is no limitation for number of templates in wikipedia and I can't see any logical reason to change things when it works, and yes it's easy to say anything but in fact it won't be easy to merge them and even if it happens, it needs hundreds of edits on Nations at the XXX Games pages for adjustment. no reason to cause problem like this. Mohsen1248 (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that you have to answer my questions; and you are right that you don't. However, if questions put to you, challenging your unsubstantiated statements and claims, are reasonable, which mine are, and you do not or can not answer them, then the closing admin should take that into account in deciding what action should be taken as a result of this discussion - which is not a vote. Furthermore, I did address you point about the olympics template; I said "Other templates may or indeed may not be proposed for merger in future, there is no deadline and "other stuff exists" is routinely discounted as an argument for keeping templates". We regularly merge templates which are as similar as these (and often less so) to reduce the maintenance overhead, and to make it easier for editors to determine which to use. Also, you are labouring under an unfortunate misapprehension. We merge templates such as these, using wrappers or redirects, in ways that mean that no edits should need to be made to the individual articles which use them. You assert, without evidence, that "merging will cause many problems". Please give some examples.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep they are different events. Saathlete (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * They are indeed - but they are the same type of event. Do you have a reason why you think a merged template would not be suitable for those events?  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment if merged, who is going to be in charge of making all the necessary changes in all those articles? Osplace 02:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe this should be Andy's job as nominator (otherwise why did he suggest it?). SFB 18:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Osplace 16:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You both appear to have missed my comment, above, "Also, you are labouring under an unfortunate misapprehension. We merge templates such as these, using wrappers or redirects, in ways that mean that no edits should need to be made to the individual articles which use them.". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment If the generic template can give the required outcome then I approve of this, but I'd like to be shown examples to prove this – the code implementations are a little different so I cannot easily compare like for like. Andy, can you please add Template:Infobox country Olympics and Template:Infobox country Paralympics to this nomination, as these two are the root templates of this template type. SFB 18:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I strongly support that if we can get a generic template to replace all of them, including the Olympics ones that works successfully, then replace. But be aware of hiring a bot to do the hard work of replacement. What are the oher choices? Delete the templates and let the current articles having the template naked or let Andy do the work, or let everything the way currently is. Osplace 16:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, as I said above, "We merge templates such as these, using wrappers or redirects, in ways that mean that no edits should need to be made to the individual articles which use them". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not concerned about edits, I'm concerned that merging may change functionality, which would be my only reason for opposing. If you can knock up a test case to demonstrate suitability of this merge then I'd be more than happy to support. SFB 21:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said above, "about the olympics template... Other templates may or indeed may not be proposed for merger in future, there is no deadline." It would be improper (and is unnecessary) to add them to this proposal. this far in. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep different events and important and official competitions. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but your comment does not make any case that we need separate templates to represent them. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 15 March 2014 (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) 01:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge all into Template:Infobox country at games. They are very similar in appearance, they share many parameters and have the same purpose so I see no reason to oppose this.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge all per nomination. I think it might be helpful to have boilerplate text at the front of these nominations to the effect that "nothing will be deleted, you won't be required to handle the merge" and so forth. It would save a lot of arguing. Mackensen (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge all if redirects will work and and no further edits should be done. Hope someone (Andy) is avalaible if something went wrong. Osplace 19:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem is there is no clear idea here how to merge them. Someone just claims they are mergeable without any proposal. Mohsen1248 (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep They are all different events and do have different and unique pieces of information that is only relevant for the event. 70.49.98.76 (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Such as? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:39, 23 March 2014 (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:Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Small

 * 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 merge if technically feasible. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Small

Recently-created fork of Template:Keighley and Worth Valley Railway. That template is transcluded to one page - Keighley and Worth Valley Railway - and if it is too big there, it may be trimmed down; there is no need to create another with substantially-similar content. Red rose64 (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Having both a smaller and a more detailed version is beneficial for certain circumstances. A user may not want to know various details; perhaps if two maps could be incorporated into one, having a detailed and simple view, this could be deleted. However, currently, this and the normal one serves two different purposes.Deonyi (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Unnecessary and duplicative content fork. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no reason to delete this. If it's "unnecessary", that's OK, as my boss here isn't insisting that I do the (considerable!) legwork to build this route template. The KWVR subject is big and broad enough, especially with the intermediate station articles, that there are credible use cases for using such a template at both the small and large sizes. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * delete, forking the template just adds to confusion. Frietjes (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge into a sandbox of the main template, if this option could be useful <tt>—PC-XT+</tt> 20:36, 15 March 2014 (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) 01:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Delete per nom & Frietjes. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge: IMHO, the simpler version should be the default, and the more detailed version included in the RDT as a collapsed “Map2”. Useddenim (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2014 (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:Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen
<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 no consensus Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 06:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen

This is mostly an actor filmography navigational template going against WP:MOSFILM. If the television, direct-to-video and filmography sections are removed we are left with: the video games section that is a list of the video games and two redirects to the list, their individual articles, their combined article, their sister's article, a company they created and Michelle Tanner, the character they are most known for which equals seven articles that are already linked on both their individual articles and their combined article thereby making this navigational template unnecessary. Aspects (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC) <hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Keep except that titles with some form of "Mary-Kate & Ashley" would be valid entries, being part of the "Mary-Kate & Ashley" franchise. So, many of those titles would remain, as part of the "Mary-Kate & Ashley" franchise. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2014 (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) 01:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * I removed the filmography links so everyone can see what it would look like with acceptable links, there are six left with three of them being the individual articles and the twin article would could be merged into the other two. Since all of the links are already linked together on their articles there is no need for this template.  I do not understand the Keep above because there is no article on the franchise so there would not need to be a navigational template for these remaining articles. Aspects (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * keep for now. with the filmography removed, it appears to be a valid navigational box. Frietjes (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment some of the filmography links are perfectly valid, as they are part of the Mary-Kate and Ashley franchise, and it is a merchandising and entertainment empire. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2014 (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.