Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 4



Template:Infobox rail standard gauge

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Infobox rail. (non-admin closure) Nihlus  07:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Infobox rail standard gauge with Template:Infobox rail.
 * Infobox rail standard gauge
 * Infobox rail

This wrapper template doesn't provide any functionality above that of Infobox rail and Track gauge, and in fact complicates any changes being made. Triptothecottage (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * comment, I updated the wrapper to use the infobox wrapper module to eliminate the need to add parameters to when they are added to, but I do agree that there doesn't seem to be a strong need for a wrapper here since the wrapper isn't doing much. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. No need for this, and articles using it tend to have an outdated set of parameters. Mackensen (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - No need for a special infobox just to automatically fill the track gauge parameter when adding the track gauge parameter to infobox rail will work just fine. If we do merge, we need to make sure the track gauge parameter set to standard gauge is added to the infoboxes of all articles that are converted.  Dough   4872   03:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment shouldn't this be on the talk page? &#91;Username Needed&#93; 14:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * support - The standard gauge infobox was created at a time when the majority of articles being written were about standard gauge railways. Since then, there have been a great number of additional articles written about railways that use other gauges.  The need for a specific infobox wrapper for standard gauge has passed, merging would simplify infobox usage.  The only difficulty with automatically setting the gauge parameter is that it needs to be set to the appropriate unit measurements (imperial units for North American and British railways, for example using  or , or metric units for elsewhere using  ). Slambo (Speak)  12:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty straightforward given rail articles are all categorised by country. Triptothecottage (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – is redundant and should be merged with .  Jackdude 101  talk cont 14:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Let's do this. –Daybeers (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2018 (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).

Template:Footer Olympic Champions Men's mass start

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Nihlus  07:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Per WP:NAVBOX, navboxes exist for the purpose of facilitating navigation. A navbox with one article in its scope doesn't facilitate that. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Footer Olympic Champions Men's mass start
 * Keep. Standard navigation for Olympic champions with growth potential. 37.54.2.79 (talk) 12:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agrees with IP 37.54.2.79. Aren't there 3 article-links in the navbox: header, event and winner ? Migrant (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, or merge with Footer Olympic Champions Women's mass start which wasn't nominated. We normally separate men and women in such templates but if some think there are too few links until future Olympics then at least merge. These footers are standard. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed to a merge. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The idea of a merge has been proposed between the mens' and womens' templates. Seeing as these will grow over time, I expect a split back in 4 or 8 years. So, do we merge now and split later or leave it as is?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  03:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominator is the only opposed to keep. I mentioned the possibility of merge but support keep. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not enough links to warrant a navbox.  Only transcluded in two articles, so its navigational function is negligible.  Useless.  -- wooden  superman  14:29, 7 March 2018 (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).