Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 30

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 29 December 31 >

December 30

edit

Template:Hindi

edit
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 Bgwhite (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hindi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No uses. Link FAs are now hanled by Wikidata. Magioladitis (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Australian road

edit
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 to discuss further changes after Luafication (non-admin closure). Overwhelming consensus seems to point to waiting until the template is Luafied before any more changes occur. No real arguments have been made for almost a month, so I'm going ahead and closing this discussion. If further discussion needs to take place after Luafication is complete, it should take place elsewhere, as this discussion was about merging the templates in their current states. TCN7JM 03:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Australian road (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (612 transclusions)
Template:Infobox road (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (18,289 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Australian road with Template:Infobox road.
Documentation describes the Australian template as "a version" of the generic one, with "several additional parameters that are specific for roads in Australia". However the generic template already includes code for Australian roads. We don't need a separate template for one country; much less for just one country out of all those represented in Wikipedia articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly oppose - Firstly, the "documentation" that the nominator refers to is in a "see also" note in Template:Infobox road/doc, not the documentation at Template:Infobox Australian road/doc, which does not describe it as "a version" at all. The two templates are actually very different, although the layout of Infobox Australian road was modified to make it look a bit like Infobox road. Secondly, the code in Infobox road is by no means complete. The issue of whether to use Infobox road or Infobox Australian road was discussed at length only last year by members of the roads and Australian roads projects. That discussion included an RfC. As a result of significant improvements to Infobox Australian road, it was decided by those involved that a switch to Infobox road would not proceed. Unless there has been development at Infobox road since then, that template does not adequately cover Australian roads because Infobox Australian road includes functionality not included in Infobox road. Infobox road is not an all-in-one template. 2,418 articles are forced to use {{Infobox street}}, {{Infobox road small}} and {{Infobox road junction}} while Infobox Australian road includes the functionality of these templates. Merging as suggested by the nominator would result in Australian roads being forced to use four different Infoboxes instead of the one that they use now, which seems quite ridiculous. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merging as suggested by the nominator would result in Australian roads being forced to use four different Infoboxes instead of the one that they use now - that's not quite how it is. Currently most articles use {{Infobox Australian road}}, some list-type articles (with multiple roads) use {{Infobox road small}}, and even {{infobox highway system}} is used. The proposed merging would only add one more, {{infobox road junction}} for road junctions, of which there aren't many Australian articles. - Evad37 [talk] 03:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no need for Infobox road small as we have that code. Articles really shouldn't be using that at all. We'd still have to find and convert articles to use Infobox street and Infobox road junction. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's no consensus to use Infobox Australian road instead of Infobox road small. And why does Infobox street come into this? Infobox road accommodates various road types (freeway, highway, road, street, etc) just like Infobox Australian road. Finding junction articles shouldn't be too difficult, there aren't that many of them. Or, iff there was consensus, Infobox Australian road could be made into a wrapper that substituted either Infobox road or Infobox road junction based on the |type= parameter (which is getting ahead of ourselves, but it could be done) - Evad37 [talk] 05:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's no consensus not to use it either. The discussion stalled and you didn't want to use it. Infobox street is the infobox used for streets. If Infobox road can do streets, why does Infobox street even exist? I don't see the point in turning this infobox into a wrapper - we either keep the template or don't. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's no consensus not to use it either - yes, and that's not quite the same thing as "Articles really shouldn't be using that at all." If Infobox road can do streets, why does Infobox street even exist? I don't know, maybe no one has yet suggested them for merging? Why have that and not infobox freeway or infobox outback track? Again, I don't know - was in place before my time. In any case, Infobox road already has the code to handle the color for streets in Module:Infobox road/color: AUS:addTypesAsColor({"street"}, "background:#F9E2D2;"), and I don't think anyone else has suggested that streets should go to infobox street instead of infobox road. As for the wrapper, that was only to show it is easy to switch some transclusion to Infobox road and others to Infobox road junction based on |type=, if there were to be consensus to merge and then delete Infobox Australian road. ie, make Infobox Australian road something like
{{<includeonly>SAFESUBST:</includeonly>#switch:{{{type}}}
|junction = {{Infobox road junction | ... }}
|#default = {{Infobox road | ... }}
}}
Which when substitute in articles would leave the correct type without manually going through, looking for infobox road junction. No suggestion of having a wrapper long term. But again, there would have to be consensus first, this is just to show that such an issue shouldn't be a barrier. - Evad37 [talk] 01:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much of your comment falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The RfC was 18 months ago; and was inconclusive. As for "functionality not included in Infobox road", this is a merge proposal; so that objection is tantamount to "we should not merge these templates because they are not already merged". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The RfC is entirely relevant. It began because the existing version of the infobox was outdated and there had been a lot of workarounds by editors to enable continued use. At the time there was some justification in abandoning it in favour of Infobox road. As a result of the RfC, the infobox was significantly redeveloped to address concerns and because the reworked infobox suited the Australian project more, the RfC was effectively abandoned. Nevertheless, there was significant discussion by members of the two projects. Your nomination is misleading because it misleads the reader into thinking the documentation for the infobox refers to it as a "version" when it is not at all. That's not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's also misleading because you say "generic template already includes code for Australian roads" when, in fact, it's only partial code. That's not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS either. The nomination implies that a merge would be reasonably simple, when the comments of Happy5214 indicate that's unlikely to be the case. Because of this, this is something that really needs to be brought up on the talk pages of the templates, rather than just proceeding to TfD. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • "this is something that really needs to be brought up on the talk pages of the templates" There is absolutely no basis for that assertion. Indeed, when considering a merge of two templates, a discussion on a neutral venue rather then the talk page of one or the other (or splitting over two) is far preferable. This is the designated forum for such discussions, and a prominent pointer to it has been placed on the page for each template, as well as on every article transcluding one of other of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Projects notified [1] [2] [3]. And here is the link to previous RFC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal - Evad37 [talk] 02:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pigsonthewing: I suggest adding {{infobox road junction}} to this TFD, i.e merging the junctions part of {{infobox Australian road}} with {{infobox road junction}} - Evad37 [talk] 03:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, but I think that's best dealt with separately. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • How can it be? Infobox Australian road is already used for some junctions. How can we not even discuss how infobox road junction will handle these case if you want to merge (and thereby delete) infobox Australian road? I'm not suggesting a merge of infobox road and infobox road juntcion, but a double merge of infobox Australian road to those templates which would be used instead of it. - Evad37 [talk] 01:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment Why, oh why, did you have to dig this back up!? Can we please wait until there's a complete Lua version of Infobox road before trying to merge the Australian counterpart into it? I welcome any input from the Australian editors on what can be added in the rewrite to make a merge more appealing. But please do it on either template's talk page, and don't turn this into an extended discussion on new features to be added to Infobox road. -happy5214 03:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, this should concentrate on a merge based on the current version of Infobox road. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no need to wait; creating a Lua module could be the outcome of this discussion; and those who have objected loudly above could more usefully contribute to making that the best possible solution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are a few different scenarios we could implement:
        1. Maintain the status quo, with the two infoboxes remaining completely separate.
        2. Convert the Australian road articles to Infobox road and delete Infobox Australian road.
        3. Separately convert Infobox Australian road to Lua and maintain it as a distinct template.
        4. Hybridize Infobox road and Infobox Australian road under the aegis of Infobox road.
        5. Similarly, merge Australian-specific features into Infobox road while keeping most Infobox road code intact.
        6. Convert Infobox Australian road to a wrapper for Infobox road.
      Keeping in mind that the best time for any incorporation of Infobox Australian road into the Infobox road codebase is while said codebase is being rewritten, and that such a rewrite is currently in progress, we have a unique opportunity to find a solution that satisfies both sides of the debate.
      If the decision is made to merge, I need to know what my feature requirements are. What has to stay in a merged template, what can I leave out, and would a wrapper or a completely separate module better achieve those goals than a merged framework? I need to know soon, since my activity will go down starting around mid-January. -happy5214 21:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nom: "creating a Lua module could be the outcome of this discussion" - this is utter nonsense. WP:INCOMPETENCE. -DePiep (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as someone who engages with new editors through outreach projects these continual merging of infoboxes are creating monsters so complicated that they are a barrier to participation. IMHO the boxes should be broken down into simpler smaller segments not shoved into a universal one size fits all. Then the very nature of these one size fits all boxes are barriers themselves to improvements and modifications. Gnangarra
    • As someone who also engages, regularly, with new editors through outreach projects; that's a misrepresentation of the true situation. It's perfectly possible to have a blank copy of such a template, with only a subset or parameters (and with some of those pre-populated), in the template documentation or on a project page. This is done and works well elsewhere - see, for example, the documentation of {{Infobox officeholder}}, which has 85,141 transclusions, without drama. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really I've never seen you at any of my workshops or outreach events, so please tell me how am I misrepresenting what I am encountering.... most templates already have a blank copy with mile long documentation even then people are seeking help, or just walking away. Gnangarra 12:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The statis quo will continue to work fine until a Lua module is created. Also, any merging should wait until a Lua module is implemented. The parties can work together on creating a better Lua module separate from this discussion. - tucoxn\talk 19:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both are already complicated and even as a semi-experienced editor I've had enough trouble trying to fix article issues just trying to work out how 'Infobox road' is working. Unless 'Infobox road' is made clearer and better documented, including all its sub parts and where to find them (comments above have suggested its work in progress) it just seams like a way to cause problems (that only those with permission can fix). If those working on 'Infobox road' can add full AUS support at some point and things can slowly move over until 'Infobox Australian road' become redundant then good, but to force the issue seams like asking for trouble. KylieTastic (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Until a Lua module is created, these infoboxes should remain separate. Once the module is created, it may make sense to merge them. Dough4872 18:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While my reasons for keeping are separate from the Lua aspect, given that the conversion of Infobox road to Lua is in process, it seems wise to not merge the two at this time as it would disrupt the conversion. When the conversion is complete, any further discussion should be between the Highways and Australian Roads projects, so we can work in a non-pressured environment to achieve the best result for all. TfD is not the place for such a discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, your comment here "As has been pointed out ..." is where the actual deviation starts. (as a side note, the satement is incorrect, even if you repeat it another 100 times). You clearly do not respond to Aussies post. On top of that, I find Aussies description "fairly inexperienced editors of your fanclub" a to the point description, which is not an ad hominem but a judgement of their editing & commenting contributions. Injecting words like "ad hominen, nasty, untrue", al unspecified and unlinked, is really polluting the discussion, and could constitute the introduction of PA. As for content: I support the contributions by Aussie here, which are relevant (and to which you have not replied a single word). Saying that an RfC is "otherstuff", whether intentionally or by misunderstanding of you, is plain stupid, given that you are not a new editor. -DePiep (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is even worse. Happy5214 has clearly and repeatedly said that they are working on this, has asked to stop it (actually, to not dig up again), and Andy keeps pushing his uninformed unread stubborn idefixe through his backdoor. Enough.
Note to any uninvolved admin passing by: please close asap as 'no consensus. Let Happy5214 work as he pleases, without pushing. nom is pushing without responding, soaking up good editors energy. -DePiep (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DePeip. I've been watching this for awhile and almost every comment you make contains a personal attack of some kind. For example, none of us needs to label anyone else as incompetent, (none of us is perfect by a long shot or completely competent on all fronts, so should not be casting stones at anyone else, as a general principle). Do you realize that whatever arguments you make lose their impact and credibility when they exist side by side with personal attacks. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
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 Paris street

edit
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. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Paris street (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox street (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Paris street with Template:Infobox street.
Merge the overly-specific local template (just 112 transclusions) into the generic one. Chief difference is the arrondissement functionality, which should be replaced with ordinary text parameter values. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:Chairpersons of the University Alliance

edit
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; no objections

Template:Chairpersons of the University Alliance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:University Alliance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Chairpersons of the University Alliance with Template:University Alliance.
Content covered in the chairpersons navbox could easily be included in the University Alliance Navbox as a section. Chris ☮(Talk) 13:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:JJ Project

edit
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 Bgwhite (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:JJ Project (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Utterly redundant, this template for a two-person boy band that released one single in 2012 and then was dissolved. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_30&oldid=1142562686"