Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 November 28



Template:Infobox pyramid

 * 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 no consensus. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Infobox pyramid - 58 transclusions
 * Infobox building - 19,127 transclusions

Propose merging Template:Infobox pyramid into Template:Infobox building.

All but a couple of the pyramid template's parameters (albeit sometimes having different, and non-standard, names) exist in the building infobox. The only ones that do not seem to be slope and volume, which can also apply to other buildings (alternatively, other_dimensions is available). Great Pyramid of Giza, for example, requires the use of the building infobox as a module within the pyramid infobox. Memphis Pyramid, a modern pyramid, which has both a slope and a volume, already uses the building infobox. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment: seems to be used for Chernobyl New Safe Confinement and Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant sarcophagus, neither of which is really a pyramid… -- HarJIT (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that was a bug in the TfD template on Infobox building; I've fixed it. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Merging into Template:Infobox monument would seem much more appropriate if merging is beneficial. --Bsherr (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not all pyramids are monuments. The parameters Infobox monument do not align as well with those of the pyramid infobox. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I see one is artwork. Which do you contend are not monuments? The parameters seem about the same to me:

--Bsherr (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Other than Memphis Pyramid, which would be a building, I agree. --Bsherr (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There are several errors in your table; for example alt and image are not the same; neither are ancient & native_name. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's more of a nitpick than an argument. The code in Infobox monument reads, so the parameter is there. Ancient name and former name aren't really the same either, unless you think Khufu's Horizon and Sears Tower should occupy the same parameter without some further explanation that the pyramids weren't "rebranded". --Bsherr (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Its neither an argument nor a "nitpick"; it's a refutation of your argument, which was demonstrably false. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, A pyramid is always a building but not always a monument. Plus, having all of these esoteric infobox categories hurts rather than helps, in this editor's opinion.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 22:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you agree that one ought to sort the pyramids between those that are only buildings and those that are monuments? Or would the new rule be that Infobox monuments applies only to non-pyramidal monuments? --Bsherr (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I like the idea of having the triangle on the map feature to designate the building's status as a pyramid. Other than that, this is really editor preference and is a solution in search of a problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't need separate templates just to display a single character differently on map; and the problems that this merge would address are laid out in Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:INFOCOL is an essay that has no policy or guideline value, this comes down to editor preference. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why it says so at the top of the page, in a big, obvious box. Where did I say otherwise? Nonetheless, its principles have held true at TfD, for many years, now. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support either per nominator or else to Template:Infobox monument. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - 1) The Memphis Pyramid states neither slope, nor volume, nor base length, nor any other comparable features except name and height. False comparison. 2) This is a solution for no problem. Moreover "ancient name" would not be replaceable with "former name". The ancient names are treated as that, ancient not former. Egyptian pyramids don't undergo a process of renaming. It's also never called a "diameter" (in any source), it's always base length. 3) The current infobox for the ancient Egyptian pyramids is compact and structured without breaks for a reason: details are scant. The last thing that pyramids need is breaks after one line that look stupid (height, base length, slope and volume should be together; two images one on top of the other at the top of the infobox take up half the IB making it look squashed; and, not to repeat myself, but two parameters are incorrectly labelled as "former name" and "diameter" when no source uses either construction), like this:


 * Nein, bitte! Mr rnddude (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Memphis Pyramid uses Infobox building, so of course its infobox doesn't include the slope. By merging these infoboxes it would be able to. No-one is proposing to use diameter for linear measurements of a pyramid's base. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 2 December 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:Infobox ice hockey award

 * 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 delete. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC) Unnecessary wrapper for Infobox sports award, with just one pre-populated parameter. Subst:ing all instances will enable reduce the maintenance overhead, and make improvements in the parent template more readily available in ice hockey award articles. No other sport requires a similarly-specific template. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Infobox ice hockey award
 * What about the pages where it has been transcluded? Where is the replacement? Orientls (talk) 06:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The replacement is by Subst:ing, as stated in the nomination. I'm not sure what your former question means. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My both questions concerned the aftermath. It seems that we have ideal replacement. I support. Orientls (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Subst and delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:14, 2 December 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:Warning archive notice

 * 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. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC) Doesn't serve any purpose since we have a long-standing consensus that old IP talk page warnings should not be archived, rather simply removed. Existing transclusions should be replaced with OW. SD0001 (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Warning archive notice
 * Comment: It doesn't say anything about being limited to IP users. However, I'm not entirely sure there's a use-case for it for non-IP users. (I don't spend much time delivering warnings.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The problem with the proposed solution is that it gives no indication that archive pages exist. So long as they do exist, there should be a template to navigate to them. --Bsherr (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, but mark as historical in /doc. While there is consensus now to blank or collapse old IP warnings, there are older IP talk pages that do have archive subpages. Alternately, I suppose instances of this template could be replaced with a standard archive box and then the template deleted—I don't feel too strongly one way or the other. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Causing no issue yet. I will support marking it as historical. Orientls (talk) 06:49, 29 November 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).