November 14
Template:Infobox LACMTA station
- Template:Infobox LACMTA station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Redundant to ((Infobox station)). Only 126 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - While the LACMTA box is used in quite a number of articles, there's really no reason the standard Infobox can't be used. It seems like someone was under the impression it was common practice to have a custom infobox for each system/municipality when this was created. It just increases maintenance work. Lexlex (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball team infoboxes
- Template:Infobox MiLB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Redundant to ((Infobox baseball team)). Only 218 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)You know what might have been more effective than nominating a bunch of templates for deletion. Ones that have more transclusions than the one you want to use instead. Perhaps talking to the relevant wikiproject and coming up with a design that does incorporate all the elements into a couple better designed infoboxes. Single does not always mean better. -DJSasso (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What's nominated for deletion? This is "Templates for discussion". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Infobox NPB team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Redundant to ((Infobox baseball team)). Just 11 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Infobox college baseball team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Redundant to ((Infobox baseball team)). Only 129 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is an easy "keep" because the template is not "redundant," and this TfD betrays the nominator's lack of experience in dealing with the differences between professional and college baseball. There are numerous differences in the terminology of parameter field names between the two levels of the sport, and there are simply no equivalents for others. For example, (1) pro teams are not affiliated with a university or college, (2) the head coach of a pro team is called a "manager" not a coach, (3) college teams are affiliated with conferences not leagues and divisions, (4) pro teams do not have conference championships or conference tournaments, and (5) pro teams do not participate in the NCAA playoffs or College World Series. This is yet another example of an editor nominating a whole class of related infoboxes without carefully examining the differences between them nor considering the specific purposes of each, and then waiting for more informed editors to comment here at TfD. It does no one any good to consolidate templates if the final merged product becomes so generic and so large, with a majority of the parameter options that do not apply to entire subclasses of articles in which it will be used. Sometimes, shorter with fewer options tailored to the specific use is the best solution. In this instance, forcing college baseball articles to use a generic baseball team infobox will inevitably lead to confusion and misuse of professional parameters in college infoboxes, and will ultimately require more maintenance of the articles by experienced editors whose time will be stretched even further. Bottom line: No, we should not merge the college baseball infobox into the general professional baseball infobox. If you want to have an intelligent discussion about merging infobox templates, we could talk about how to create a consolidated infobox template for most college sports, or at least a consolidated series of infoboxes with greater similarity in layout and design and using the same base code. But that would require advance planning and some knowledge of the sports as well as experience in the templates' use and practical applications. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "If you want to have an intelligent discussion about merging infobox templates" - Yes; that's why they're listed on "Templates for discussion". Your claim that merging would "inevitably lead to confusion and misuse of professional parameters in college infoboxes, and will ultimately require more maintenance of the articles by experienced editors" is bogus; a
|type= parameter could prevent the display of irrelevant parameters, and switch labels as required. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally a change the size you are looking for would be best discussed on the related wikiproject talk page before going to the drastic step of putting it on Tfd where there is a time limit gun to everyone's head. Where more often than not a good discussion can't be had because of how Tfd is setup where things are more keep or delete based instead of general discussion on how to better design a template. -DJSasso (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Dirtlawyer sums this up a lot better than I could have. There comes a point where templates get so large and so generic as to no longer be useful and actually make the situation worse. I think these nominations are a case of that. -DJSasso (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "only" 129 transclusions? Resolute 14:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Resolute, the number of template transclusions is largely rrelevant; there are currently 129 college baseball team articles, and that number has gradually expanded over the past three years. The larger point to be discussed is the inappropriateness of most of the professional baseball parameters for a college baseball team; despite sharing the sport of baseball, the two subclasses do not share university, conference and league affiliations, playoff and championship structures and terminology, governing bodies, or coaching terminology. As I said above, sometimes a template that is shorter and more specifically tailored to a particular class of articles is simply more efficient. This is one of those cases. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per the various differences between professional and college baseball, as cited by Dirtlawyer1. Kithira (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Infobox Independent baseball team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Redundant to ((Infobox baseball team)). Only 218 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't taken the time to compare parameters or how they are used to see if the template really is redundant, but I note ((Infobox baseball team)) has only 181 transclusions. This and some of the others below seem to have pretty widespread use, comparatively. Billcasey905 (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox Defunct Independent Baseball
- Template:Infobox Defunct Independent Baseball (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Redundant to ((Infobox baseball team)). Just six transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If it should be merged anywhere it should be merged to ((Infobox Independent baseball team)) -DJSasso (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox Taiwan baseball team
- Template:Infobox Taiwan baseball team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Redundant to ((Infobox baseball team)). Just two transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge since two transclusions doesn't warrant a separate box. -DJSasso (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Infobox Defunct MiLB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Redundant to ((Infobox baseball team)); Only 156 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If it should be merged anywhere it should be merged into ((Infobox MiLB)). -DJSasso (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps; though I've also nominated that template, in order to facilitate a more thorough discussion. Note "meta" section, below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meta discussion
It may be that we should have more than one baseball team infobox; but it's unlikely that we need the nine that we currently have. What's the optimal way to arrange them? What are the key differences, if any? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Buddhism-Horizontal
- Template:Buddhism-Horizontal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
we have Template:Buddhism topics, and ((Buddhism)), this doesnt provide any useful navigational help that i can discern. While i feel with the template creator and editors, i also can see this is not skillful means to aid readers. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, the template in question is only a smaller, less helpful version of Buddhism topics template. There is really no use for it, except that is generalizes the search option; I wouldn't argue against a deletion. -Ano-User (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]