Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 March 19

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 18 March 20 >

March 19

edit

Template:Actor-model-stub

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused stub templates for the intersection of two tangentially related occupations, whose associated categories were deleted by WP:CFD as non-defining. People who are notable as actors or actresses can be stub-sorted as actors or actresses, and people who were notable as models can be stub-sorted as models, without needing a separate stub category or template for people who were both actors and models. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2020 (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).

Template:Infobox Politburo

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 28. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:26, 28 March 2020 (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).

Template:Infobox academic

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus to merge so do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox academic with Template:Infobox scientist.
I'm afraid this is largely overlapping, though "academic" is an accidental feature and "scientist" the essential one? PPEMES (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm weakly opposed. I don't see the benefit of merging the two because, while there is overlap, there are many academics who are not scientists (i.e., humanists) and {{infobox scientist}} seems to have parameters specifically for botanists and zoologists. If they do get merged, I would recommend ibox scientist be merged into ibox academic rather than the other way, since ibox academic is more general. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Largely overlapping. Many scientist are also academics & vice versa. Examples in the documentation of {{Infobox academic}} include "discipline = Physicist" and "Academic discipline - Sub-atomic research", while {{Infobox scientist}} has various parameters for the subject's students. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. Just as there are many academics who are not scientists, so also there are scientists who are not academics. My late father was a scientist, but there is no way he could ever be described as an "academic". --NSH001 (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. Strong oppose to merge (see explanatory comment below). Some academics are not scientists, some scientists are not academics, so a merged template only makes sense for scientists who are academics. There might be scope for a more general template that embraces both (in content and name), but until there is they should both be kept. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge, as per User:Jts1882 above. I would love to see some work done to reconcile common or very similar attributes of the academic and scientist templates, perhaps even moving some of the common features into infobox person, but I think a merge is not desirable. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per JTS1882. DS (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, not all scientists are academics, not all academics are scientists Duncan.Hull (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think a clearer description of the intended outcome could address the "many academics are not scientists, many scientists are not academics" issue. Looking at the parameters, I could imagine all of them being encompassed in a "researcher" template, for example. But since I primarily work on pages about academics who are not scientists, it's a little worrying to hear "'academic' is an accidental feature and 'scientist' the essential one" -- it makes it sound like the features in the "academic" infobox would be removed, which I consider obviously undesirable. What is the impetus for the merge? / What would the merge change? ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 21:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No clear rationale for the merger, very clear reasons for not merging (ie the majority of academics are not scientists). I struggle to think of a term that could encompass the two without causing further problems of generalisation (eg renaming as "specialist" would lead to the inclusion of all sorts of activities far removed from what is intended...as would "researcher"). --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Infobox:Historian" already redirects to "infobox scientist" --Liverpoolpics (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the point is not that there are some people who are scientists but not academics and vice versa. The point is that there is enough overlap and one template could easily handle the two circumstances. A single template reduces maintenance burden and promotes standardization. A new name for the merged template may be in order. Ergo Sum 14:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge: the umbrella of academia covers nearly every profession imaginable: humanities, medicine, law, theology, finance, accounting, business administration, technology, engineering, government, and so on and so on... They are all distinct concepts and categories, and any generic catch-all category of all of these thing lumped into one would be largely meaningless. Re: another comment abou "Infobox: historian" redirecting to infobox: scientist: historian ought to redirect to ACADEMIC, not scientist, because historians are not scientists, and historians are also one of the very few categories in which practically all of them *would* also be academics. Firejuggler86 (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose I have created and expanded articles for several historians, and the academic infobox works very well. An excellent example of its use can be found at Eric Foner. Historians should not be classified as scientists. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional merge: I support merge to infobox academic, but only if a parameter such as "|scientist=yes" is added to indicate science vs humanities. Otherwise, I oppose.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 21:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The words 'scientists' and 'academics' are not synonymous. Nerd271 (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither are the words "judge" and "president" synonymous, but we manage to serve both groups quite well with the same template. --RexxS (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be true, but is irrelevant. These categories are too broad. Moreover, what works for two groups does not necessary work for another pair. Nerd271 (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    These are not categories: they are merely the names for the templates, and no reader sees them, so "too broad" is meaningless. Of course, the other side of your argument also holds true: what doesn't work for two groups may work for another pair. And that's why your original argument is equally irrelevant. --RexxS (talk) 10:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, so you do acknowledge my argument. But what you derived from it, I am afraid, is invalid. There should be different templates for different categories. Both judges and presidents can be categorized as office holders. But scientists and academics are not of the same category. Mathematicians, natural scientists, and computer scientists can be broadly grouped as scientists; people in the humanities, on the other hand, have their own group. Each broad group – but not too broad – should get their own template. Nerd271 (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, your argument is nonsense. Infobox naming is not categorisation. There is no reason whatsoever that we should have "different templates for different categories". {{Infobox person}} is used for hundreds of different categories of people because they use the same parameters. {{Infobox settlement}} is used for dozens of different categories of places because they use the same parameters. There is no good reason to associate "each broad group" with a different template if a single template can do the job. You do realise that we can use redirects to make use of as many names as required, while keeping a single template, which makes maintenance and updating much easier? --RexxS (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I quite agree with the other opposes above. Just to provide an example of why a single template is a bad idea, I give you this article. Apparently, a few years ago, Template:Historian was oddly merged into Scientist rather than Academic, causing a historian to have a "scientific career" listed in her infobox (I only recently discovered this after having been inactive on WP for a while). This sort of confusion is why we should keep the above templates separate. (Also, Template:Historian should really be merged into Academic but that is for a different discussion). Ruby2010 (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The nomination doesn't make a case for this and the historian/scientist example shows how this can go wrong. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose for the arguments stated by the people who actively work with these infoboxes and know them in and out. —МандичкаYO 😜 17:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose——联合果君 (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger: not all academics are scientists; not all scientists are academics; and a merger would conflate the two. That aside, no stated reason is sufficient enough to oppose. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Would've voted earlier, but seemed like everyone already did that for me. Voting now anyway just because. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Seems entirely unnecessary. MargaretRDonald (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Why would scientists be merged with academics, and not every other discipline? Which does not mean that both could not be improved - see table below. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 21:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: per JTS1882. --Balabinrm (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as both are significantly different. –Davey2010Talk 17:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge merge under the name academic. Most scientist are academics or at the least all scientist are academic-esque in nature. A solution for this is just to put a scientist parameter within the academic infobox. Llakew18 (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It promotes confusion, especially with newer editors using templates. A new editor creating a page on a scientist will find it counterintuitive to use an academic's template, and vice versa. Merging the two also restricts the possibility of adding more specific parameters to the templates, if necessary. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary: my experience - of regularly teaching new users, at both learned societies and univesities - is that confusion is caused by having these two overlapping infoboxes. Many of the biographies my trainees write are about people who are both academics and scientists. Nor would a merge preclude the addition of the hypthetical future properties to which you refer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for anyone else, but only for myself as a relatively junior editor. I have used the template when writing a legal academic's biography and I would definitely have found it confusing to use a scientist's infobox, and to know which parameters should be filled up and which should not. Perhaps I am discounting the other kind of confusion that might appear when someone is both an academic and a scientist, and then the editor doesn't know which one to choose. But in that case, wouldn't it be better to have a line on the template page saying "the scientist infobox covers subjects who are both scientists and scientific researchers"? To your second point, I agree, but it makes it at least slightly more difficult, exacerbating the problem I mentioned earlier of parameters specific to one type of subject. I can't see enough of a benefit to merge the two from this page so far to outweigh these concerns. In any event, the proposed resolution must account for both of our concerns, or else it would simply be replacing one problem with another. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment following from what Oulfis said above, would it make sense to rename "Infobox academic" to "Infobox researcher", add any missing parameters, and merge? Then things would be tidier - and probably work better for the public, who in my experience of editathons and outreach work don't always know the difference between academic and non-academic (and there are a lot of grey areas in the middle, both inside and outside science, for whom this compromise might work much better too)? Zeromonk (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Parameters (academic v. scientist)
edit

Here is a comparison of the parameters in the two templates:

Parameter Infobox academic Infobox scientist
academic_advisors    
alma_mater    
alt    
author_abbrev_bot    
author_abbrev_zoo    
author_abbreviation_bot    
author_abbreviation_zoo    
awards    
birth_date    
birth_name    
birth_place    
boards    
caption    
child    
children    
citizenship    
death_cause    
death_date    
death_place    
denomination    
discipline    
doctoral_advisor    
doctoral_advisors    
doctoral_students    
education    
embed    
era    
field    
fields    
footnotes    
home_town    
homepage    
honorific prefix

honorific_prefix

   
honorific suffix

honorific_suffix

   
image    
image_name    
image_size

imagesize

   
image_upright    
influenced    
influences    
known_for    
main_interests    
major_works    
module    
name    
nationality    
native_name    
native_name_lang    
nocat_wdimage    
non-academic    
notable_ideas    
notable_students    
notable_works

notableworks

   
occupation    
other_names

othernames

   
parents    
partner    
partners    
patrons    
period    
principal_ideas    
prizes    
pronounce

Pronounce

   
pronounce 2    
pronounce comment    
pronounce ref    
Pronunciation

pronunciation

   
relatives    
resting place

resting_place restingplace

   
resting place coordinates

resting_place_coordinates restingplacecoordinates

   
school_tradition    
siglum    
signature    
signature alt

signature_alt

   
signature_size    
spouse    
spouses    
sub_discipline    
thesis_title    
thesis_url    
thesis_year    
thesis1_title    
thesis1_url    
thesis1_year    
thesis2_title    
thesis2_url    
thesis2_year    
title    
titles    
URL    
website    
work_institution    
work_institutions    
workplaces    

I have yet to determine why, for example, we think that scientists do not sit on boards, or that academics do not get buried when they die. Or why we believe that divorced or widowed scientists might remarry, but that divorced or widowed academics do not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Perhaps we should simply make a Template:Scholar (with both the above columns) then? PPEMES (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, we just wait to for the people opposing a merge to tell us what in the above table justifies having two templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More discussion
edit
  • Oppose as the proposal was advanced with an apparent presumption that it would not be controversial, so the case for it was presumed obvious and not stated plainly. The case is not obvious (obviously) and there is reason to doubt that the merge will be handled with care. This is not a case of people protecting their hobby-horse topic and making unnecessary work for maintainers. There comes a point where a template can have so many optional parameters that it becomes difficult to use. Multiple layers of abstraction (redirects) are not a satisfying solution for all editors. The logical endpoint of the merge mania I’m detecting is for all infoboxes about professions to be merged into {{infobox person}}. (Cue badgering response from User:Pigsonthewing in 3... 2...) — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 05:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The proposal for merge seems to be based simply on the mechanics of the template rather than about content of the infobox that is exposed to the reader and why it is used for a particular article. Naturally they use similar parameters because they both wrap {{infobox person}}. The whole point of wrapping standard templates is to customise the infobox for particular uses. When we look at {{infobox academic}} we see sections Academic background and Academic work, while {{infobox scientist}} has Scientific career. An academic working in french literature or lingusitics doesn't have a scientific career and a scientist working in the pharaceutical or technology indistries doesn't have an academic career. Merging the templates would lead to more absurdities like historians having scientifc careers because {{infobox historian}} redirects to {{infobox scientist}}. This discussion should not be about inner workings of the template, it should be considering whether it improves the presentation of information in an accurate, precise, clear and understandable form for the reader. That is why wrapper templates are used to customise {{infobox person}}. The proposed simple merger will make the infobox less clear and less accurate and none of the rebuttals to the merger objections have even addressed what the reader sees. This is a classic case of not seeing the wood (infobox) for the trees (parameters). I'm changing my position above to Strong oppose. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Merging the templates would lead to more absurdities like historians having scientifc careers " No, the merge would resolve that issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SNOW close and oppose - There is a clear consensus not to merge here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2020 (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).

Template:Infobox pageant titleholder

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 28. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:28, 28 March 2020 (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).

Template:Infobox Playboy Playmate

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 28. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:32, 28 March 2020 (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).

Template:Infobox executive government

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox executive government with Template:Infobox government.
Could we use a merge here? PPEMES (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2020 (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).

Template:Infobox Native American leader

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Native American leader with Template:Infobox person.
I know it concerns a wrapper, but the variable "clan" is arguably not specific enough to merit a specific ethnic group template. There are many infobox person-articles where that is a potentially relevant variable despite not necessarly pertaining to an office holder. Hence why not merge? As an alternative perhaps also to Template:Infobox officeholder. PPEMES (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2020 (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).

Template:Infobox United Nations

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).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Infobox organization. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox United Nations with Template:Infobox organization.
Seems largely redundant? PPEMES (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2020 (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).

Template:Infobox clergy

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 28. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:32, 28 March 2020 (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).

Template:Campaign medals of the Honourable East India Company

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 28. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:34, 28 March 2020 (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).

Template:Infobox pretender

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 28. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:36, 28 March 2020 (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).

Template:Infobox gunpowder plotter

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 28. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:37, 28 March 2020 (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).

Template:Infobox peer

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 28. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:40, 28 March 2020 (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).

Template:Infobox war faction

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).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Infobox militant organization. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox war faction with Template:Infobox militant organization.
Sure that or else into Template:Infobox military unit? PPEMES (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2020 (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).

Template:Infobox military award

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).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Infobox award. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox military award with Template:Infobox award.
Seemingly large overlap means significant potential for a merge? PPEMES (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2020 (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).

Template:Infobox identity document

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox identity document with Template:Infobox document.
Destination template not particularly cluttered. Surely a general catch-all infobox could handle the total, merged scope?. PPEMES (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2020 (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).

Template:Infobox ethnonym

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox ethnonym with Template:Infobox ethnic group.
Merge into proper variables in the destination template? PPEMES (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom - as can be seen on Fula people, for example, these are used together. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The purposes of the templates are different. 'Ethnic group' is intended for ethnicity articles and covers info about the people -- population, location, etc. 'Ethnonym' is intended for language articles and covers non-trivial derivations of the word. It's intended for situations where the people and language may have different grammatical forms in English-language sources, and wouldn't even apply to much of the world (e.g Europe).
Also, we'd have two competing titles, the endonym for 'Ethnonym' and the English exonym for 'Ethnic group'. Assuming these are different, which one gets priority? E.g., take the article Baganda, where people have decided that the Bantu plural rather than the root should be used as the name of the article. Should the title of 'Ethnic group' be changed to 'Ganda' to accommodate 'Ethnonym', despite disagreeing with the title of the article? And if 'Baganda' is used, how do we accommodate the 'Ethnonym' template, since that is incorrect as the root of the name? — kwami (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't the total of your concern be dealt with in one single template? PPEMES (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A name of what? According to ethonym it is "a name applied to a given ethnic group". Did misunderstand that sentence? PPEMES (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2020 (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).

Template:Life in the United States

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).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:United States topics. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Life in the United States with Template:United States topics.
To merge into the "culture" section? PPEMES (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The intention is improved overview, which is a part of the purpose of templates except navigation. The merged contexts should be properly located in relevant sections, so it wouldn't mean wading through random scattered entries. PPEMES (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Properly and carefully seem like key words here. Most of the entries belong in a culture section. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2020 (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).

Template:Nature reserves of Estonia

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 28. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:39, 28 March 2020 (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).

Template:AwardsDecadeHeader

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used; required Template:BDDecadesInCentury which has been deleted. – Fayenatic London 10:18, 19 March 2020 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_19&oldid=947780316"