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; deleted as G7 by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Adobe Flash Sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is redundant to Template:Adobe Flash which existed when the author created this one. The nominee only causes linkbombing and WP:REPEATLINK being broken. The number of links on this template is less, i.e. only Adobe software are listed, but that exactly the problem: It results in POV treatment of Adobe. Fleet Command (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Also, we should favour footer navboxes over this, sidebar, style, as logic dictates that most people will want to use them after, not before, reading the article on which they sit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the sidebar since it highlights the most important tools and formats on the Flash Platform, while the footer introduces hundreds of minor and insignificant applications and formats that obscure the important ones. There are other examples of duplicate navboxes. See Template:Barack_Obama and Template:Barack Obama sidebar, where the entire list of related articles are listed in the footer navbox, and the most prominent or important articles listed in the sidebar. I have added the only 2 other major tools into the sidebar (FD & FDT). -- Wonderfl ^(reply) 19:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, author of the template. You said: "it highlights the most important tools and formats on the Flash Platform". Are you sure? Because seems to me besides Adobe products, it only lists article that you yourself wrote. In addition, per WP:N only most important tools and formats can have Wikipedia articles, so everything that you didn't list there is equally important. Also you said "There are other examples of duplicate navboxes" which is the same as other stuff exists; the answer is: If other stuff shouldn't exists, delete other stuff too. Fleet Command (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I started almost none of the articles, However, I have been actively contributing to all Flash-related articles. I'm not presenting a biased overview. For example Stage3D and Away3D, which I majorly contributed to are not included. I have only presented the biggest and most influential tools in each category. -- Wonderfl ^(reply) 20:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Wonderfl: Thanks for the reply. I stand corrected on those points. Look, when you change your verdict, you need to strike the old one by wrapping it inside <s>...</s>. Fleet Command (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If some of the items in the navbox are more sigificant than others, they can be highlighted by emboldening, or placed in the first line. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I concede. The argument could go on and on, and I see its no use having a duplicate navbox. Does someone have a script to remove it from all the pages? Wonderfl ^(reply) 08:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused. As the author, I really don't know whether to delete or keep it, and I really don't care. I designed it as a means of improving navigation within "popular" or "famous" tools, ie. to give readers a quick overview of the Flash platform and the biggest and most important tools within it. But at this point editors have mentioned that a) it seems biased towards Adobe (I actually designed it with only Adobe tools, FD & FDT were added later) and b) it presents a partial overview of all Flash-related tools and technologies compared to the bottom navbox. While these are true, the usefulness of a reduced sidebar can be debated and I'm not in the best position to do so. As a result I'm completely confused, and would like more experienced editors to pitch in their votes as well. Wonderfl ^(reply) 08:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I am not. (Sorry if it is a bit blunt.) You see, in Wikipedia we do not employ our own judgment to say "these tools are most influential". We defer it to notability concept. The rule is: Either it is notable or not. If it is, bring it into navbox. If not, nominate for deletion. (Of course, there is a time and place limit for every human, so there are only so many articles we can nominate at a given time.) Fleet Command (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. Go ahead. Delete it all. Does someone have a script to remove it from all the pages? Wonderfl ^(reply) 07:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but merge key parameters if there is a need to transclude some things in one box but not the other. . Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the author, I can safely say there's nothing in the sidebar that not in the footer navbox; styling, acronyms and ordering differs though. Wonderfl ^(reply) 14:53, 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.

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 keep. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Indian state government (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox legislature (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Indian state government with Template:Infobox legislature.
Largely redundant; the Indian box (which has just 49 transclusions) has a judiciary section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Oppose this The current UK house of commons template is much better as it shows the breakdown of each party in a much neater way and the template is easier to understand. I don't know the technical side of it but changing it seems pointless to me and would annoy me greatly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.77.86 (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does the current UK house of commons template have to do with this? It's unaffected by this proposal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. nom does not provide content or parameter translation. Saying "redudant" is not an argumetn (ant then: what is 'largely'?). Incorrect proposal. -DePiep (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No parameter mapping is required. Once again, you are inventing "rules" on the fly. You have nothing to say about the merits or otherwise of the proposal; your objection (one of several made within the space of a few minutes; and like many you have made previously) appears vexatious. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • To closing admin: "You have nothing to say about the merits or otherwise of the proposal; your objection appears vexatious. ". PA, disruptive injections. I propose closure as no consensus for disrupted discussion by the nom. Arguing useless from here. -DePiep (talk) 08:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good luck with that. Noted that you still have nothing to say about the merits or otherwise of the proposal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename as the legislature branch of government does not incorporate the judicial branch. However, perhaps if all 49 transclusions are judiciary-related, them maybe rename to "Judiciary of India" or something like that and fix it to look like ((Template:Infobox Icelandic court)) or something. Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose; Keep. India has separate template unique for its entries, not like template used generally for multiple other countries. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is indeed a separate template for India; that is not disputed - indeed, it is the reason for the nomination. However, you make no case as to why India needs a separate template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• @Pigsonthewing: What do we do with the judiciary and executive fields? Alakzi (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It turns out that "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes." here as of 10 September 2013, but is now being reconsidered here. The fact that he's been very active here seems to violate that restriction.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  23:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, what does that have to do with my question? Alakzi (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That only addresses articles, not the management of the templates themselves. Now, back to the merits of the issue, please. Montanabw^(talk) 09:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• don't merge for now, but it would be useful to explore rewriting "Infobox Indian state government" as a frontend for something. Frietjes (talk) 19:52, 18 February 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.

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 keep. --BDD (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox crater data (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox feature on celestial object (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox crater data with Template:Infobox feature on celestial object.
Largely similar; craters are a subset of features. Keep as a redirect for craters on Earth, if used for any. Note that the "feature" template is already used on several crater articles, such as Aladdin (crater). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: 3 dependencies: I don't know the nom-mechanics, but I would think that ((Mercury crater data)), ((Venus crater data)), and ((Infobox Mars crater)) need to be mentioned alongside ((Infobox crater data)) in the nom since they are dependents and will be affected.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  18:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. The first pair are simply redirects; the latter a wrapper. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • ((Infobox Mercury crater)), ((Infobox Venus crater)), and ((Infobox Mars crater)), then are all the direct dependents of ((Infobox crater data)) and should be made more visible in the nom header.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  21:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Parameter analysis missing. -DePiep (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No parameter analysis is required. Once again, you are inventing "rules" on the fly. You have nothing to say about the merits or otherwise of the proposal; your objection (one of several made within the space of a few minutes; and like many you have made previously) appears vexatious. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until we look at the other crater infoboxes. (But WTF is "parameter analysis?" That is not a requirement here) Seems that Mercury, Venus and Mars could all be merged to the general crater one. I don't think a merge to feature on celestial object is the way to go, I think there are enough craters (must be thousands out there already mapped) to justify a stand-alone. I WOULD support a merge of the "child" crater boxes, though. Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some craters on different planets/moons have the same name (i.e., Tycho on Mars and Moon); would this cause issues in merging the crater infoboxes? Carl Henderson (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose; Keep. Unique template to craters and not to a general feature. Having gone through the entire listings for 12/21, I openly question whether you have any knowledge of basic astronomy. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thor Dockweiler: Having taken the trouble to make an ad hominem attack, perhaps you could now take the trouble to say why you believe separate templates are needed; not least given that "the 'feature' template is already used on several crater articles, such as Aladdin (crater)"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 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.

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. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox lunar mare (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox Lunar crater)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. They are too similar. But I support using the title style of Infobox lunar mare. Fleet Command (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a combined template, named ((Infobox lunar feature)); unlike the open cluster/astronomical object discussion above, these are both similar features, and thus a single infobox is appropriate. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Definitely redundant. To what name, I don't care. Lunar feature would be OK with me too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 20:58, 27 December 2014
• Strong Oppose; Keep. Unique template to lunar mare (plural of maria). Lunar maria does not equal lunar crater. They are two totally different features. Diameter may not be the best term in maria. Having gone through the entire listings for 12/21, I openly question whether you have any knowledge of basic astronomy. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another ad hominem attack. That aside, the issue is not how similar or not mare and craters are; bit how similar the templates are. Would you care to address that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please refrain from personal attacks, focus on the issue, which is if we need separate infoboxes for separate lunar features or if we can merge them, somehow. Montanabw^(talk) 02:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose These are two different kinds of features. It is too confusing for our writers to have to use a wrongly named template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Graeme Bartlett: And here I thought you admins have the power to rename stuff! ((Infobox lunar feature)) sounds like a great name. Also, redirects are just fine too. Fleet Command (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We indeed do have the power to rename stuff. So do all other autoconfirmed users such as yourself. That doesn't mean we will move something that will obviously be contentious on a whim; if there's any reasonable chance of it being contested, it has to go through a process. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeping this template as a redirect would resolve the name issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and rename both to ((Infobox lunar feature)). Barring that, at least merge... Montanabw^(talk) 02:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to lunar crater. Rename per Montanabw, and or merge if appropriate (lunar crater isn't tagged) —PC-XT+ 00:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I posted on Template talk:Infobox Lunar crater, if that suffices —PC-XT+ 00:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: A merge is unnecesary; the two templates already have identical parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template has styling, and uses |above= instead of |title=, but that can always be added into the other template if desired. The other also has |depth= and alias |title=, which are not in the documentation. Every other parameter is in both templates. (diff) The only other differences seem to be in comments and whitespace, so redirecting this to the semi-protected one seems reasonable. Renaming would not be necessary, in that case, so I'm changing my !vote. —PC-XT+ 23:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• merge, including a feature= parameter. We could consider making two front-ends with the feature= parameter pre-filled to mare and crater. I'm not much of a fan of those very thin wrappers, but if it helps to find compromise here, I can live with that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• merge as per Martijn Hoekstra. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:58, 14 February 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.

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 no consensus. Though everybody appears to appreciate that templates are no place for content, there is no consensus to take any particular action at this time. Placing this information in articles' source is thought by some to curtail a significant maintenance burden; and placing it in a Lua submodule is thought to be more—or equally—inaccessible. A renomination once Wikidata expressions have been made available is likely to garner a positive outcome. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Solar eclipse2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Solar eclipse (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Solar eclipse2 with Template:Infobox Solar eclipse.
#2 is a wrapper for the original, for no obvious purpose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is used in conjunction with template databases, like ((Solareclipse200_db|Infobox Solar eclipse2|2006Mar29)) Tom Ruen (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's ((Solareclipse200_db)); what an impenetrable (and undocumented) mess; a barrier to editing for all but a few editors. That data should be in infobox templates in the respective articles (and eventually in Wikidata). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Solareclipse200_db and others were exported from a spreadsheet, and reduces the chance for errors, and allows data to be presented in different ways. It was first setup by another user, and I just copied what he did. I don't know what wikidata is, but if its easier, I'd support a conversion eventually. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support; I see no reason for a separate template, when all it does is wrap the other. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Apparently I was mistaken in what the template did. Therefore, I strike my support to merge. However, the current system is very confusing to anyone other than those who created it, and thus a rename at the very least is certainly necessary. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second template DOES NOT "wrap" the other template. It substitutes values from the db file. If its useful, it can be renamed for clarity. Tom Ruen (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it should not; as I noted above, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not clear what you are proposing. Tom Ruen (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm proposing that we do away with having two versions of the infobox; and that the specific data should be in written directly in infobox templates in the respective articles (and eventually in Wikidata). How we achieve that is a mater for this discussion to decide, but the result would probably look like this (which was achieved by simply Substing the nested templates in turn). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • REALLY? You're going to do this by hand for some 495 cases, and then if NASA updates its calculational database, we're going to again hand-edit 500 articles to make the corrections? Tom Ruen (talk) 11:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • No. The conversion would be best done by a bot or a tool like AWB. And future updates, if any, can be applied by a bot; or eventually via importing the data from Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't have access to a bot or a tool like AWB (whatever that is). The current template works fine. You complain templates are hard for users, and then offer something even more inaccessible. Why not keep it as is. There are many other such template systems as well in-use. Tom Ruen (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • No-one is asking you to use AWB. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • So why not keep it in a system I understand? The data-field templates are hard to setup, but easy to use and extend when needed. If a better system exists, and I have time to learn what it is, then I can evaluate when to move to it. Replacing a good system with an inferior direct substitution one because someday a better system will be setup someday by some mysterious unknown person makes no sense to me. Tom Ruen (talk) 10:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Because the more generic system is understood by far more editors than just you; and because putting the data into Wikidata makes it available to all 280+ Wikipedias. The commoner system is not inferior to the current one, which is dependent on the knowledge of one or two (or any small group of) editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                      • So how about WAIT and keep as-is, UNTIL someone wants to take the time to move it to WikiData, assuming it is so great like you promise? Tom Ruen (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I wasn't referring to Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Andy: "I wasn't referring to Wikidata." yes you were. "No-one us asking you to use AWB." Yes, you did Andy. I note that you are going into word-play again, evading the serious querstions the an editor asks. -DePiep (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Both of your claims are utterly bogus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• don't merge yet. it would be a good idea to rewrite this using LUA, moving the database pages (e.g., ((Solareclipse200_db))) to subpages of the lua module, but that will take some engineering. Frietjes (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We most absolutely should not bury content in Lua modules. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand the desire to place the data in the hands of editors who do not know Lua. It should eventually be in wikidata, but if Lua is better at using wikidata for infoboxes, I don't see the harm in starting to convert, now. —PC-XT+ 00:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Above Tomruen clearly explains that the template provides centralised data, for single-point maintenance. Manually maintain data in-article instead of through a template, really? Nom could have learned that, and conclude withdrawal. (Instead, nom draws out a discussion thread into wordplay & evasions; disrupting and derailing a discussion is another valid reason to not honour a proposal). -DePiep (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Centralising data" in obscure, undocumented, one-off sub-templates is not how we build Wikipedia. Your objection (one of several made within the space of a few minutes; and like many you have made previously) appears vexatious. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After your twisting replies in the subthread above, don't expect me to reply serious. Already you have started the buildup for a snotty snub here, didn't you? -DePiep (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DePiep, your personalizing of this issue is not appropriate. Please confine your comments to the technical aspects of this request. Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and combine parameters: Use technical skills to make sure no links get fouled up. Us a bot so it's seamless, seems this is an artifact of an older, clunkier syntax and needs to be streamlined and modernized. Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean "combine parameters"? Tom Ruen (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose; Keep. Too destructive of current set-up. Prior items re astro objects seem absolutely stupid to me. Having gone through the entire listings for 12/21, I openly question whether you have any knowledge of basic astronomy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thor Dockweiler (talk • contribs) 07:11, 29 December 2014‎
  • You seem to keep making the same ad hominem attack; it's a distraction, and this is not the place to comment on other TfD/Ms. The purpose of this TfD is to change the current setup, which is harmful in its inacesibility. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now or merge as autofill — This should eventually be in wikidata, but could be kept or luafied until then. I'd prefer it have documentation, though. —PC-XT+ 08:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm adding support for autofilling parameters. If this is done, we can later change the template, (or module, preferably,) to use wikidata instead of this database. I would rather not fill in all the templates, then remove the data again when converting to wikidata. It seems a waste of time, (though I know it would not really be that much.) If it would be better to keep the templates separate, and not use autofill, then my !vote is a straight keep. —PC-XT+ 00:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm not sure the nom understands what he/she is proposing. It would break the template and the hundreds of articles that use it.  — TimL • talk 23:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand fully; nothing would be broken, and you offer no evidence to the contrary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 5 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.

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 Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Tornado year (EF scale) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Tornado Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Tornado year (EF scale) with Template:Infobox Tornado Year.
Very similar templates. "EF scale" refers to Enhanced Fujita scale, which can be accommodated in a combined tempalte by a choice of parameters, or a switch. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hmm... I will consider undertaking such a merge if I find the time. Dustin (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Merge - The templates are nearly redundant. Let's just merge in the extra features of Infobox Tornado year (EF scale) (if any), and then fix up the corresponding tornado articles once that is done. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge:Per all of the above. Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; Merge. Andy actually is right on one. Per all of above, but with no loss of information data. But Andy should do the work. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom —PC-XT+ 08:51, 31 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.

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 no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox air density (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hard-coded instance of ((Infobox property)), of which it is the only use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete. Has only three transclusion (2 are sandboxes); accepts no parameters. Fleet Command (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Before disposing consider evaluate the contents and compare with other similar infobox. Scientific texts should have a chance to improve their information and presentation: properties, its units, equations and use are important for understanding its context in scientific texts. Maybe expand the use is a better destiny than discard. After all I see still a long way to transform the informative texts of school in encyclopedic articles containing knowledge. As the editor I will abstain from voting, but I believe quality was more important than quantity. As for the parameterization I would be pleased if someone would help me and improve the code. RookTorre (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• New Comment. As there was no answer: When made this template I used as a reference this architecture and hierarchy:

Template:Infobox element >> Template:Infobox oxygen >> Oxygen

Template:Infobox property >> Template:Infobox air density >> Density of air

Is not the first time that the rules are applied in unbalanced way. We should delete all templates for specific chemical elements? (It is an obvious ironic way, just to emphasize my amazement). Me looks exactly the same case. (As I would expect from a copy) RookTorre (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • There are no "rules" to apply. What answer did you expect? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing. I stopped edit the wiki because of rules-based reversions(in my other account). After months I went back now and in my first significant edition that happens...Better I stop editing, just edit who knows what does. ty and apologize for the inconvenience. -- RookTorre (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Creator clearly explains that maintenance is helped this way. That beats the outdated "used only once" non-issue. -DePiep (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template creator has nothing to say about "helping maintenance". You too have nothing to say about the merits or otherwise of the proposal; your objection (one of several made within the space of a few minutes; and like many you have made previously) appears vexatious. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The template creator has nothing to say about ... , You too have nothing to say about ... Sure. -DePiep (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. This behaviour by the nom is inexcusable. Note that they also chased away an editor who came here to improve wikipedia, and got the response 'There are no "rules" to apply', which is simply unacceptable put-down behaviour in a discussion. When disrupting and derailing the discussion, each and any argument by the nom becomes idle. I propose & expect this one be closed as "no consensus due to disruptive discussion by nom". I have no confidence that from here any serious argument added here would receive due weight. -DePiep (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or delete: If not actually in use, then the main template can incorporate any maintenance parameters. Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose; Keep. This infobox certainly helps the article. I am unaware of any rule that requires an infobox to have numerous articles link to it. What infobox would you use instead? Now that I am at the end of the list I am beginning to have the impression you hate infoboxes. Why? Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:19, 29 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.

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 for having insufficient links to be a useful navigational aide Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gidi Up (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per NENAN. Only two links are active. Stanleytux (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The template has four active links on the main subject, episodes, and the seasons. These are not pages the the average reader will easily be able to look up without a nav box, NENAN obviously doesn't apply here. Besides, more articles on this subject (series) will definitely be created - then the need for a navbox.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: NENAN definitely applies here because all I can find is just two links, a parent article which is fewer than five links. This shouldn't have been created since the pages for it aren't yet ready. Stanleytux (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: @Stanleytux: If you exclude the main article, there are three active links. The Episodes article and the two seasons articles. NENAN recommends that five articles (excluding the primary article) need to be present in order for a navbox to be present. If you want to be techinical like that, the navbox can be deleted. However, it doesn't make sense to do so because the navbox will be recreated once two more articles spring up. Versace1608 (Talk) 15:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Such a small number of links can easily be incorporated into article prose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I generally hate nominations that say "Per WP:NENAN" unless they say which part of NENAN. But this one makes sense: The navbox bears four links, all of which are either in the compulsory infoboxes of the linked articles or can be. So this template makes no sense. Fleet Command (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems that we are still in a short list, the other episodes can be a see also list. Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 27 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.

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 as no longer needed Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Now exist the ((ROOTPAGENAME)) variable. Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 02:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete per nom. (Template is pseudo-wrapper for ((ROOTPAGENAME)) anyway.) 62 transclusions should be easy to deal with. Fleet Command (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Appears redundant and is confusing. Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong opposal Not sure of the technical side to this, but I would like the infobox template of the UK house of commons to stay the same, it looks much neater as it is now and changing it would be just pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.77.86 (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This template was created in the Wikipedia in Spanish only because there was a variable to do the same to ((#titleparts:((PAGENAME))|1)), now exist ((ROOTPAGENAME)). In Wikipedia in Spanish was completely unlinked, this template is obsolete. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 20:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete as redundant —PC-XT+ 08:59, 31 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.