Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 7



Template:Infobox 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 There is a strong consensus against merging these templates.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  19:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Infobox event
 * Infobox civilian attack

Propose merging Template:Infobox event with Template:Infobox civilian attack.

Largely overlapping; often used interchangeably. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Previous proposal: 2013 October 1. Concluded: not merge. -DePiep (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support merge suggest neither title is suitable.  For example a fuel leak, or a building collapse would seem to fit (but aren't "civilian attacks", but a flash mob wouldn't, although it's an event.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Oppose per my vote in previous discussion. Brandmeistertalk  22:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not all civilian attacks are ongoing current events so what would be the gain in doing this? There seems to have been a solid consensus on the last discussion of this merge and none of the points raised by the ones opposed to the merger last time were addressed by the nominator this time here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This proposal has nothing to do with "ongoing current events"; that's not what Infobox event is for. The gains would be in reducing the confusion for editors who need to know which template to use; and in reducing maintenance overhead. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose merging per my vote in previous discussion. Quote: "Bad idea, because "event" can mean "any" event of special significance. Civilian attack, on the other hand, is a civilian attack with the emphasis on "civilian"... and on "attack"." Poeticbent talk 05:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , which is badly named, isn't for "'any' event of special significance" - look at its parameters, it's for news events, typically involving deaths and injuries. Civilian attacks are a subset of that. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * is actually superior in that regard because its "title" is placed within the box, not outside the box, which allows for placing the template legibly anywhere in the article, not just at the top. Poeticbent talk 14:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

In general, the nomination evades all semantics, for parameters and for the templates in general. All this would could have been prepared in a talkpage merge proposal. That is where the people in the know gather. -DePiep (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with a merger. Bearian (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the outcome, the history needs fixed: Infobox news event predates this by several years and was incorrectly redirected here when someone reverted Andy's merge of this fork to it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess the nomination means to merge the civilian attack into the event infobox, otherwise I'm not sure how Inauguration of Zachary Taylor could be considered a civilian attack? In any case, I see no issue with both existing.  The drive to continually reduce us down to a single infobox with billions of parameters is tiresome.  If anyone's ever worked in a company with centralised services, they should know by now that one size does not fit all, and time would be better spent elsewhere.   The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no "drive to continually reduce us down to a single infobox". Please avoid alarmist FUD. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support merge into Infobox event I think that the generic is better thana bunch of content fork templates here. Works for any number of things.  Definitely chuck "civilian attack" - too subjective a decision; look at Ukraine right now, for example.   Montanabw (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support merge of the two infobox templates to Template:Infobox event. For instance, it is used in Land Rush of 1889, which is appropriate for the Infobox event template, but not at all relevant for Template:Infobox civilian attack.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 19:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * merge. Noticed the TfD notice on Halifax Explosion, a disaster not an attack, and many of the uses have this problem to a greater or lesser extent (non-civilian targets or non-attacks). Better to merge to the general template which can be used without such concerns.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 14:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - if it aint broke dont fix it.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see any issues whatsoever with having more than one choice for an infobox. Isaidnoway (talk)  05:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment:where there are two possible infoboxes, confusion as to which one inevitably arises. Here the parameters are overlappng to a significant degree, and it seems appropriate to merge the "civilian attack" one into something broader; event is fine with me, but if there's something else out there, infobox event would not be the only possibility.   Montanabw (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose As an editor, I prefer seeing a shorter list of specific parameters instead of a long list of parameters, most of which don't apply. The confusion about which infobox to use could be easily ameliorated if there were clear guidance on when to use each template. As it stands, there is no guidance whatsoever in the documentation for either of them. - Gorthian (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is not "significant overlap". Infobox civilian attack uses 14 unique parameters that are not now included in Infobox event: alt, partof, map, map_size, map_alt, map_caption, target, timezone, type, victims/victim, weapons, numparts/ numpart, motive, and dfens. These were the obvious ones. Some of these seem fairly specific to an attack, while others might need to be in Infobox event now. Lacking good documentation of the Infobox event template, I'm not sure how some other parameters would merge, such as perpetrators/perpetrator (and their aliases); I'm not sure that Infobox civilian attack's fatalities and injuries are the same thing as Infobox event's reported deaths and reported injuries*corrected typo, there could be a difference between actual and reported numbers. Infobox civilian attack is well-documented; Infobox event lacks good documentation (which should be added regardless of the outcome of this discussion), for example, what is the difference (if any) between the url and website parameters? There seems to be an effort to make Infobox event a "one-size-fits-all" infobox by including three blank label and blank data parameters, we already have that in the  template. Infobox civilian attack currently uses 26 parameters, fewer than half of which are currently included in Infobox event; Infobox event currently lists 41, a number which is likely to increase if this merger is approved. Even assuming Infobox civilian attack's reported deaths, reported injuries, suspects, and convicted parameters would merge to Infobox events' fatalities,injuries,susperps, and perpetrators parameters, that still leaves Infobox event with the also known as, cause, first reporter, filmed by, participants, outcome, reported missing, reported property damage, burial, inquiries, inquest, coroner, accused, charges, verdict, convictions, publication bans, litigation, awards, url, blank_label, blank_data, blank1_label, blank1_data, blank2_label, blank2_data, website, and notes parameters, a total of 28 parameters that an editor might possibly need to delete. One of the purposes of specific infoboxes is to identify the information needed about the subject; the Infobox event template is already horribly bloated and there is no justification for making it more so at the expense of ease of editing by our users and confusing them as to what information is needed in the bargain. Also, I would like to see instances where the two are "often used interchangeably", as stated by the proposer.&mdash;D'Ranged 1 talk 04:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're "not sure that Infobox civilian attack's fatalities and injuries are the same thing as Infobox event's reported deaths and injuries"? Really? The difference between the url and website parameters is, er, the name of the parameters. The issue of "needing" to delete unused parameters is easily resolved by providing two or more copyable blanks, as done elsewhere; that is no justification for separate templates. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I just corrected my earlier comment, had you read the remainder, you might have realized I made a typo. There may be a difference between "reported" deaths/injuries, the parameters wouldn't necessarily merge. As for url and website, why are both needed? Are they or are they not synonymous? Lacking documentation for the template, it is impossible to tell. And having to figure out which parameters apply to the article you're writing/editing and then delete the rest is something that's avoided altogether by having the separate infobox. I have yet to see a logical reason to delete an infobox that is used nearly twice as much as the one it's being proposed to merge with to make an already long template even longer; what is the benefit to editors of the merge, please?&mdash; D'Ranged 1   talk  14:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Typo or not, the point stands. The parameters are equivalent. Such naming differences are routinely dealt with when templates are merged - and this is a merger proposal; there is no proposal to "delete" a template. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)ur " "often used interchangeably",
 * To answer your " "often used interchangeably", question, is used by Wagon tragedy, Korean Air Flight 858, Elizabeth Smart kidnapping and NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters.  is used by French Revolution, Glorious Revolution, Johnson County War, Reichstag fire and Rangoon bombing. All could arguably swapped for the opposite box.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I like this thorough analysis by . It describes the multiple issues with a merge extensively. I am surprised by the number of previously unresearched & actual parameter mismatches. The parameter documentation (or the lack thereof) tops it of. And it is exactly this lack of documentation that the nom uses to bend their interpretation into "the difference is in the parameter name" (url vs. wesite), for example. (simply: that is not true, even if nom repeats their statement). Note: even that would be one parameter down.
 * I see now that url and website are not the same (url is actually a misnamed parameter for a link to film footage), but are in fact both parameters of ; has no website parameter. That's not a reason not to merge, the templates; but i fact an exampe of parameter(s) wihch should be shared.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are zooming in on that one parameter question again, and an unrelated one at that (but for the bad-documentation point). What about the grand lines of reasoning by D'Ranged 1? -DePiep (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have already responded to D'Ranged 1's comments/ Even if both templates were supremely well documented, they'd still be heavily overlapping, often interchangeable (As demonstrated) and this ideal candidates for merging. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes there is an overlap. Almost all infoboxes have. No that does not make them the same. -19:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Proposal badly formulated. Nom does not mention the earlier MfD (where he contributed; I'll add a link), nor are any changes since mentioned (a good reason to re-nominate). I find the nomination too low in clearness (which will have the code? what code or parameters will be changed, by semantics even?). -DePiep (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Update I just checked—Infobox civilian attack is transcluded 1,925 times; Infobox event is transcluded 1,010. There is no reason to merge an infobox into one that is being used nearly half as often as it is.&mdash;D'Ranged 1 talk 04:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Such figures have no bearing whatsoever on the decision to merge templates. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Both of our statements are opinions, unless you can provide documentation that the statistic shouldn't be considered in this debate.&mdash; D'Ranged 1  talk  14:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Precedence. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose They are not synonymous, and may not even overlap. For example, the event template is quite appropriately used for Yugoslav coup d'état, but it was not a civilian attack. I fail to understand the rationale for this merge proposal. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that Yugoslav coup d'état correctly uses, because the perpetrators were military men, but should use if they were not (If they were policemen? If they retired from the military the week before?) shows just how redundant the two templates are to each other.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per last consensus and agree more with the previous comments that oppose than those that support. If an infobox is being incorrectly used, replace it with the correct one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The point, as I demonstrated above, is that either can be correct. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The 'civil attack' box requires and has substantial extra parameters: describe violence, perpetuators, victims. The fact that some parameters are the same does not make infoboxes the same. I think Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett is looking for a metatemplate "infobox event".
 * As noted above, is used for events which featured violence, and had perpetuators [sic; perpetrators] and victims.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose: As per comments made above [in opposition to the proposed merger] and at Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 1. Sincerely, ← Abstruce  13:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No problems are solved by the merge, but it would probably introduce new problems, like a bewildering list of parameters that discourages editors, as was mentioned previously here. Badon (talk) 13:57, 17 May 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 Horseraces

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Infobox Horseraces
 * Infobox turf race

Propose merging Template:Infobox Horseraces with Template:Infobox turf race.

Similar templates, overlapping purposes. Also need a better name, to avoid confusion with Infobox horse race. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support merging all to Infobox horse race or Infobox horseraces or equivalent This will be consistent with infobox racehorse Montanabw (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge to - they have different purposes.  is for a recurring event, like the Epsom Derby;  is for one specific event, like the 2013 Epsom Derby. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think it's a distinction without a difference; only a few races have annual articles, the vast majority have an article with annual winners contained within. Adding a parameter or two will cover both, IMHO. Even if there is some logical reason to separate the annual event from the generic (and I can't think of one), there is still no reason to have separate boxes for turf and dirt when a "surface" parameter can encompass both.  Montanabw (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not the proposal! Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I think it's consistent with the idea of consolidating duplicative boxes. We can have dirt and truf parameters in one template. Montanabw (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's not; but I was told that "once a category is brought to CFD all options are on the table"; I assume that it's the same for templates as for cats. But please note that it was, not me, who suggested that these should be merged to . -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support merge per Andy M., suggest . All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Comment: Unduly complex, Rich. A horse race is a horse race.  "Horse racing event" is passive voice and unneeded. We can have Infobox horserace if we need something new.  But it's absolutely silly to not merge all four, somehow.  The USA runs both turf and dirt races, and worldwide we also have races on synthetic surfaces. Totally a waste of bandwidth to have separate infoboxes.  Montanabw (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would like a single infobox for all recurring horse races, and a different one for individual runnings of a race. I would have a slight quibble with the word "purse", as it is not really used much in the UK, "Prize money" or "Winner's prize" might more universal.  Tigerboy1966  08:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We're all buddies here, so I won't throw myself on the floor kicking and screaming if we have two boxes, (grin) but WHY do we need two different boxes? What are the parameters that are so different that we can't just include them in a single template and toss the unneeded ones?  I need some convincing.  Also,  where should the turf and dirt races go?  That said, I'm OK with "Prize money" as a universal term, or we could have Andy set the parameters so either the US "purse" or UK "prize" are both allowable alternatives.   Montanabw (talk) 17:13, 8 May 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 horse race

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Infobox horse race
 * Infobox dirt horse race

Propose merging Template:Infobox horse race with Template:Infobox dirt horse race.

Similar templates; overlapping purposes. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support merging all to Infobox horse race. This will be consistent with infobox racehorse Montanabw (talk) 16:47, 7 May 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 Speedway national team
<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 merge Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 01:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Infobox Speedway national team
 * Infobox Speedway national U-19 team
 * Infobox Speedway national U-21 team

Propose merging Template:Infobox Speedway national team with Template:Infobox Speedway national U-19 team and Template:Infobox Speedway national U-21 team.

Merge these near-identical templates and rename to include the phrase "motorcycle speedway" for clarity. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support, propose then Template:Infobox motorcycle speedway national team (or merging further to  Template:Infobox motorcycle speedway team). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Support: You guys can sort out the details.  Montanabw (talk) 17:41, 8 May 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 British Speedway League
<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 merge Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 01:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Infobox British Speedway League
 * Infobox speedway league

Propose merging Template:Infobox British Speedway League with Template:Infobox speedway league.

The "British" template has better parameters, but these should be merged at the more generic name. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support evident good sense. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Support: Seems logical and no reason to have two. Does a US Equivalent version exist?  (I know squat about motorsports)   Montanabw (talk) 17:40, 8 May 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:N-wegNL
<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) 01:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * N-wegNL

It should use JCT. Thewombatguru (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What's JCT? --Bermicourt (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe the template for major road junctions. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC).


 * I think this template may be necessary as a transitional part of Autobahn infobox template (AIT). The AIT should be replaced with a native en: template, when a road infobox is moved from de:, but not necessarily immediately.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC).


 * delete, unused. if it's really needed, it can be trivially recreated. Frietjes (talk) 00:28, 4 June 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:Tora
<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 Consensus is to delete this template.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  19:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tora

fails WP:NENAN, having no links at all <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment if this is kept, it should be renamed to Tora (band) to match the article, as Tora has many uses, and which it is should be indicated as part of the template name. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete no links at all, except the main article, so not a navbox -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * NOTE Tora (band) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * NOTE the main article has been deleted, so no links for anything anymore, and this is now unused. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - page decoration only - David Gerard (talk) 23:42, 16 May 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.