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 for any concrete change Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to something: Is there a separate infobox for digital TV? Seems that computing standard is perhaps a little broad, but I don't know enough about the tech to speak to this. I definitely agree that one nation's digital TV standards with so few transclusions is a proper candidate for deletion and merge, but is the "computing standards" infobox the right target for a merge? Montanabw(talk) 01:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep, not entirely redundant to anything. we could always go back to the old version since we all love direct transclusions of ((infobox)). Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, simply because I don't know how to use ((Infobox technology standard)) to present the same information. I would look at a parameter mapping or wrapper, though. —PC-XT+ 12:38, 1 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 do not delete. There may be consensus to merge, but I would suggest starting a merge discussion if you wish to merge it with another template. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was for you to research before nominating. -DePiep (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PotW apparently thinks the starting year, author and editors can be handled by the other template or omitted, and is asking how that claim of redundancy is flawed. I don't currently see a reason to eliminate those fields, and I don't know how to place them in the other template, either. Does that clear up anything? —PC-XT+ 07:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge, if it is not entirely redundant, merge into technology standard otherwise just delete. 50.126.125.240 (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not redundant. Nom even admits that they don't have a clue what "redundant" means. Immature, and given the status of the nom bad faith proposal comes to mind - this cannot be a explainend as mistake or misunderstanding any more. -DePiep (talk)
@DePiep: One again you attempt, falsely, to put words in my mouth. Of course I admit no such thing, since to do so would be a lie. Desist from making such false claims; and from your ongoing campaign of personal attacks, about which others have already warned you, more than once. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Not entirely redundant" your reply: "How so?". ie, you are asking what redundancy is (you could have/should have researched before nominating). And in other recent TfDs you have been pointed to this same error: you claim redundancy in the nomination, and quite simply a commentor comes along and points to a difference - which falsifies that claim. (The fact that you do not have a habit of recognizing or self-correcting such an error does not help clarifying & cleanup these issues of course). As you know, I point in detail to errors in your discussion process. When these errors keep popping up, you can not blame others for that. You can type PA as often as you want, but that does not make that a fact. As for this TfD: you could have substantiated your "redundancy" claim for six weeks. Or withdraw. -DePiep (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[DePiep: I'm outdenting because your indenting is, again, broken. Perhaps you should put your own house in order before making accusations of incompetence?]
"Not entirely redundant" your reply: 'How so?'. ie, you are asking what redundancy is" That's nonsense. You point out in detail what you believe to be errors; but your beliefs are mistaken. As I noted, others have already judged you to be making personal attacks; and warned you. And no-one has "falsified" [sic] the claim I made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. This line of talk is ridiculous. We're supposed to assume good faith, not bad faith, right? How does this help the discussion progress? Let's stick to the template, please. (Sorry about the indent, I didn't use an asterisk because that's what I do for my !vote, below.) —PC-XT+ 07:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Frietjes, due to a few parameters that I don't know how to place in the other template, listed in a reply, above. —PC-XT+ 07:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per arguments by Users Frietjes and PC-XT. In addition, ((Infobox W3C standard)) has a different nature in terms of information presented than ((Infobox file format)). What ((Infobox W3C standard)) should include is kind of a title or header in addition to the name of the standard that the item is a W3C standard (such as "W3C standard:"); otherwise it's slightly confusing as to context, because in the XML article, there are two similarly-titled templates in view. -Mardus (talk) 16:48, 1 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.
Template:Infobox perpetual motion machine
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 as overlapping in purpose Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Infobox perpetual motion machine with Template:Infobox controversial invention.
Similar templates, with overlapping purpose, and only six transclusions between them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:13, 6 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.
Song contest templates
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.
per, surprisingly, unanimous consensus. For the last group, a merged template already exists in ((Infobox Song Contest)), the others still need to be merged.
A pattern emerging here. I think a RfC is in order if we are going to be looking at the redesign of such infoboxes, and then we (or Andy) could then mass-delete the ones that are no longer needed. TfD of multiple templates all scattered about at different sections of this TfD page is just going to cause a lot of problems. People would mention of suggestion at one TfD and not be aware of other suggestions at one of the other TfD's. Could we not put all these "noms" together in the same thread, to avoid confusion. Wes Mouse | T@lk 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion and merge: No need for 10 katrillion infoboxes for every nuance. One will do. Montanabw(talk) 01:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Against merging: I see no reason for merging. Wesley makes several good points as to why it should not be merged as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WM's points are procedural and do not make a case for keeping the templates separate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Restructuring, which was in the project's pipeline to begin with, regarding proposals to create "all-in-one" universal infoboxes for contests/festivals within Project Eurovision scope, so that they can be used on any of their respective articles regardless of the type of contest. Request to postpone TfD so that the discussions can conclude and may result in other templates within the project to be deleted en-mass. Wes Mouse | T@lk 01:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Pigsonthewing, if you had done a bit more research, which you have demonstrated that you like to be devious and trawl through people's contributions as if to spite their nose of their face, then you would have discovered that the discussion has been ongoing for 2 weeks now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Haphazard methods, in which it has been noted that the project is in dire need of restructuring including the way it deals with categorisation and template structure. And there was no need to close down an active discussion on the project talk page that was concerning restructuring either; as the thread was covering not just templates, but other areas. All I have asked is for the project to be given the chance to discuss the issues and look into proposals of making universal infoboxes that would work on any contest article, and then we would be able to come back here with a list of obsolete templates that would be ready for uncontroversial speedy deletion, as the "snowball delete" consensus would have already been obtained as part of the project's restructuring debate. One would expect an ounce of courtesy, compassion, and allow a project the chance to sort out their mess. But then it is Christmas, and Scrooge has to live on! Wes Mouse | T@lk 12:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, until a replacement template is ready – The ABU has no direct connection with the Eurovision Song Contest so just using the Eurovision template for ABU articles isn't a good idea in my opinion. I think creating a new template such as ((Infobox Song Contest)), with flexible parameters to suit each contest as needed would work nicely. When this is done a new TfD can be opened and the old templates can be deleted as redundant. WikiProject Eurovision are capable of doing the full implementation, and merges of templates and other such things had already been proposed before this nomination was made. CT Cooper ·talk 15:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing would be replaced or deleted "until a replacement template is ready"; that's what this discussion is (supposed to be) about. "just using the Eurovision template" is not what is proposed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly what CT Cooper noted. A discussion was already taking place at Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision#Haphazard methods which has been ongoing for the last 2 weeks, and is still active with an outcome still to be determined. In the discussion are issues about looking into restructuring categories and templates; and as was noted in that discussion a series of RfC's would be created (and have been created) so that the merging/redesigning discussions can take place, and then all "redundant" templates would be mass-nominated as non-controversial speedy deletes. These string of piecemeal TfD's are more redundant and duplicated, considering the other debates already taking place. Admin closure of these should be taken to allow the active project discussion to conclude its course. Wes Mouse | T@lk 17:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion to which you refer does not mention infoboxes, and only uses the word template once, in passing, in an unrelated context. Your multiple attempts to shut down these discussions, by a variety of means, while denying that you are doing so, is becoming tiresome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, Andy, you are being uncooperative and disruptive and not even listening to what others have to say. Did I miss the memo in which it was announced you had become God Almighty? That debate is still ongoing, so what if it mentions templates once - the fact is they have been mentioned along with the entire production of the project itself. As it is a very indepth debate that is covering every aspect of the project, from how it should operate to structure of templates/categories. Such discussion is not going to be concluded overnight, and naturally with what is to be covered will take a hell of a lot longer than the average 30 days. Trying to shutdown that debate when it is merely 2 weeks old is despicable behaviour and very pushy. If one actually did their responsible jobs correctly around here, and took the time to just check if a project is already in mid-discussion on a template before hitting the TfD red button, then one would be more helpful and one would be avoiding the creation of heated debates such as this. You're not even showing any reconcile by noting the fact a debate is still active elsewhere and letting that debate run its course. What is the rush? I thought Wikipedia had no rush? You haven't even apologised for purposely searching through my talk page archive in order to dig up something that has no face value whatsoever - and that has been noted by an administrator for your info. Two users also state that no canvassing has taken place; yet you still do not retract such allegations; and not only that you then imply that a RfC is now a canvassing tool for this? You are the issue that is becoming tiresome and needs nominating for deletion before you cause more destruction. Wes Mouse | T@lk 19:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wes Mouse, you need to stop attacking the individuals and focus on the issue. There is a need for a centralized discussion and it is clear that this set of template schemes happens to be a total disaster. I do think that putting all the templates into one TfD and going from there is a good start, but Andy had good faith in starting with what he could find... how many more are there? Montanabw(talk) 20:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw: I agree that a centralised discussion should take place, and one was taking place almost 3 weeks ago at Project Eurovision, as it was noted that the project was going down the "haphazard" route of just creating templates and categories at a whim, creating bio articles without due care or attention to bio policies; and many other issues. The idea of creating the discussion 3 weeks ago was so that project members could openly air out their thoughts, and then go forward to a "super RfC" that would cover every issue that was causing problems for the project, including article layout, templates, and categorisation. As such discussion would be covering so much, then the normal 30 day RfC period would be too much - too soon, to handle such major details. And I wanted to make sure that I had taking into account for a reasonable time-frame for such discussion to take place before opening up such RfC. I, myself, have been having internet issues, so opening up a discussion only to be unable to participate would be useless (if that makes sense). The project would be going through the redesigning process of these templates, roll out the new versions (across thousands of articles) which would take time, naturally. Thus a mass-nomination of all the obsolete templates would have been put up anyway, but they'd be without contention and could technically be "speedy deleted", thus saving all this brash tittle-tattle of TfD debating. (I think I made sense there). And in reply to the question, there are quite a lot of templates within the project, so the project discussion the format of how a universal version would look, is a logical and peaceful manoeuvre. Wes Mouse | T@lk 13:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we're clear on the point that nothing will be done until it's all worked out. I don't want any drive-by mergers or deletions. Though as it stands I'm doubtful these discussions will end with a clear resolution. Putting aside the fact that a lot of the discussion so far isn't about the templates, it doesn't help that we seem to be having multiple parred discussions, when we actually need one centralised discussion for all the relevant templates, including some which haven't been TfDed. These nominations were premature. CT Cooper ·talk 19:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: the templates are useful, but they are very similar: they have exactly the same fields and the same style, only some field names are different. Merging them would therefore improve maintainability and would not have any impact on what users see on screen. Basically, it would just be a technical issue. Stee888 (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, until a replacement template is ready – There are no reason to merge this at the moment. Until the other issues have been taken care of.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since no templates can be replaced (or redirected) "until a replacement template is ready", your !vote is tantamount to merge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know someone's keep !vote could be changed to a merge !vote just because they say so. Isn't that vote rigging? Anyhow, a new universal design is already in progress and should be ready to roll out by the end of the week across 100's of articles - and then all the older templates will be ready for mass-deletion. We came across an issue with the map parameter, which explained why there were different templates. So on say Eurovision Song Contest 2015 (as well as previous contests and Junior etc), in the infobox we have | map year = 2015, this tells the infobox to transclude what is at Template:Infobox Eurovision/2015 into the infobox. Thanks to AxG, he has worked on a fix for this issue and which will mean we have to rename tons of pages. So [Template:Infobox Eurovision/2015]] will be renamed Template:Infobox Song Contest/Eurovision Song Contest 2015 and with added coding will be automatically generated on the article without | map year = 2015; Template:Infobox Song Contest/Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2015, Template:Infobox Song Contest/Eurovision Young Dancers 2015, Template:Infobox Song Contest/Türkvizyon Song Contest 2015, Template:Infobox Song Contest/ABU Radio Song Festival 2015 etc. etc. these will also be generated automatically on their respected articles. I should point out though that this will be quite a hefty process to carry out which will require some time, although I have the red bull and coffee on standby and prepared to work 24/7 without sleep to get these done rapidly. Also there are legends that need to be fixed, which are used across other language wikipedias, as they also use the same maps that English Wiki uses. This was the main problem that caused so much chaotic panic, because the coding used was also relying on maps/legends shared between metawiki (is that the right term to use for multilingal wikipedias?). Wes Mouse | T@lk 00:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as I have yet to cast my !vote for this template, I shall do so now. Keep until the replacement template has been successfully rolled out across 100s of articles, then renominate for uncontroversial delete. Final tweaking to the replacement is almost complete, and as I pointed out, I am even going to spend as much time as required to the new version changed over, even if it means taking time off work and working without any sleep. People can't say I am not being fair in this process. It will also mean all the current WP:ESC infoboxes will be mass-deleted, and an admin from the project has volunteered to carry that deletion process out once the roll out is completed. Wes Mouse | T@lk 15:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question how is this an apparent fork? They are two different contests, one is specific to Wales, the other pan-European. If there are ways to improve a template, then perhaps raising such issues at Project Eurovision talk page would be logical. I get the impression that the nom is mass-nominating quite a lot of Project Eurovision templates, which is quite disturbing behaviour. Wes Mouse | T@lk 20:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The clue is in the documentation of the Welsh template, which still includes a fragment of the ESC one it was copied from. Please assume good faith; and see Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation for a FAQ explaining why we don't need so many infoboxes doing very similar jobs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And remember, Pigsonthewing, one also needs to assume the assumption of good faith. I merely said I got the "impression", that was not being bad faith. Merging the two templates would cause a hyperlink issue; because the syntax within the Eurovision version has things that create a link to Eurovision pages. For example [[(({Country))} in the - Eurovision Song Contest]], which allows the need to only input the country, so that it will automatically direct to articles such as Italy in the Eurovision Song Contest. We could not use that for Can i Gymru, as it would create a link to Wales in the Eurovision Song Contest, when there is no such article. The same is for the ABU Radio template which you also nominated. If we used the Eurovision version, it would not direct biennially, and would create annual links. Also it would show at the bottom on the inforbox that it is Eurovision, when we'd need to show it is ABU Radio. Wes Mouse | T@lk 20:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A merger would not simply copy parameters from one template to another, but would address cases such as those you describe, and build in any necessary alternative parameters or switches. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So then it would be more logical to discuss those proposals at the project talk page, work on a design that would be able to deal with every type of contest under the project scope - and then the obsolete versions get mass-deleted. This has been done before with other templates at the project. It saved time, and meant the obsolete ones got speedy deleted with no objections. Wes Mouse | T@lk 20:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TfD may be the case, but when we are discussing the possibility of merging a lot of templates so that there is a one-for-all version, then it would make more sense to discuss ideas at a project talk page, and then work on a design that would fit the one-for-all purpose, and then delete all the obsolete ones. That's how I would do it anyway, so that it avoids heated debates like this. Wes Mouse | T@lk 21:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How the hell is that canvassing? These are templates used by Project Eurovision - notifying the project of these nominations is reasonable, as not all members have the alerts on their watchlist. Get a grip and like you say "assume good faith". Wes Mouse | T@lk 20:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the guideline, as I advised you to? Notification may be reasonable but doing so in the partisan manner used by you is most unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One does not need to read it, as there is nothing breached. I did not use an artisan manner; I am one how has always worded things direct and blunt - the project know this has always been my method. A note gets posted on the project talk page, a bit like a kick up the ass, so that they know to check the alerts, or view a deletion debate and decide how they wish to proceed. I had not forced or worded force that they must vote! to keep, they have a mind of their own, and I have never forced them to do anything other than make them aware of a debate that requires their attention. Wes Mouse | T@lk 21:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"One does not need to read it, as there is nothing breached" - Oh dear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an echo in here or did a parrot fly by and repeated my words? Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification states "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: the talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion.", that is exactly what I did - notified the project talk page, but I did not use words that forces them to follow my vote! nor influence any vote! decision that they wish to make. Wes Mouse | T@lk 21:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're now quoting from a guideline which you have already proclaimed it unnecessary to read. Remarkable. However, your quoting is highly selective. You have omitted the parts which say " keep the message text neutral,"; "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded..."; and that lists "Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner" under the heading "Inappropriate notification". Nor "Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages.". The guideline also notes that people who canvass "may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard, which may result in their being blocked from editing". It seems this is something you are well aware of from past discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I have just pointed out at the project talk page, Pickette pointed something out to me, and I have removed comments that may have looked as POV-ish, as that was not what I was trying to do. I was trying to provide a brief line of what rationale you had given - a bit like a news headline saying "debate taking place regarding A, B, and C, with rationales 1, 2, and 3 been given. And also noting that these debates require serious attention. The members are capable enough of making their own decisions, and I noted that fact in my closing line of the post. And now you're trolling through my talk page archives? Why do that, as if to "game the system and prove a point"? Wes Mouse | T@lk 21:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And now you're misrepresenting what you did, to present it in an unduly positive light. You did not merely report, but used phrases like "ridiculous reasons behind each [nomination]" and gave there your arguments about the various rationales given here, questioning and disputing them. Those comments are still visible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You still did not answer why you're trolling through my talk page archives? For the record, the link you provided from my talk page archive has got nothing to do with canvassing, so what purpose are you using it for? Feels very much like a case of hounding, especially as you have demonstrated sifting through my talk page archives in order to link to something, and then single-out other templates created by myself and put them up for nomination shortly after this one, and strangely no sooner after our first interaction at another TfD on this very log page. And you are twisting words out of context and claiming it to be canvassing. I always say things in a blunt way, but never in a manipulative manner. Sometimes my bluntness comes across too harsh, and when I get that gentle nudge, then I do look back on them and willingly re-word such comments so that they are not as "blunt" as they were. The comment you quote was just be being blunt, and when nudged by Pickette and I re-read it, I noticed it did feel a bit POV and struck through, as I was not trying to be POV, but just thinking out loud (I do that a lot). Wes Mouse | T@lk 22:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The section in question has you saysing "you accused me of 'canvassing support', when it was clear that I was not canvassing anything of the sort. I made a Project member aware of a situation that has been raised several times over the years" (emphasis mine), so your statement "nothing to do with canvassing" here is false. If you think you're being "hounded", take the matter to WP:ANI; the discussion here is increasingly off-topic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But you haven't a clue what that discussion was about, from start to end. I posted on the project talk page back then about another RfC that required attention. The user accused that of being canvassing - and subsequently was informed by an admin that my action was not canvassing - that is what the comment was about. The same has happened here, I have notified the project page about a string of TfD's... OK I used "thinking out loud" expressions, which in written content may look as being in a sinister manner; but that's just be me and the project know of this. I tend to post a comment, say things as it is, but they are use to me now to know what I say is in no way to influence judgement, but me just thinking out loud. What decision they chose to make is their own. Also at WP:ESC, there is still an active debate taking place regarding the reorganising of the entire project including the review of categories, templates etc... all of which will require multiple RfC's. These templates you've nominated will most certainly be discussed at the RfC's and once a better way of handling them (or remaking them if necessary) were to be reached, then a mass-nom of deletion would have been made; just like it were when the project discussed Standardising templates, Recategorising, and Template duplications. All of which we discussed potential duplicates, worked towards restructuring them, and then mass-deleted the obsolete ones, peacefully, as everyone had worked together to reach a result. Wes Mouse | T@lk 22:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge: More heat than light here. The issue is that we have about 10 katrillion infoboxes for every nuance of Eurovision and that isn't an efficient use of infoboxes. To compromise a bit here, if there are some parameters so very special to Eurovision that a generic TV song contest (American Idol, etc) infobox can't encompass everything (I would think a parameter for annual/biannual/qualifying competition, etc would work though) then maybe a generic Eurovision infobox would do, but seems no reason for more than one. Montanabw(talk) 01:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Restructuring, which was in the project's pipeline to begin with, regarding proposals to create "all-in-one" universal infoboxes for contests/festivals within Project Eurovision scope, so that they can be used on any of their respective articles regardless of the type of contest. Request to postpone TfD so that the discussions can conclude and may result in other templates within the project to be deleted en-mass. Wes Mouse | T@lk 01:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, until a replacement template is ready – The Eurovision Song Contest is a very differnt event from Cân i Gymru, so just using the ESC template isn't a good idea in my opinion. I think creating a new template such as ((Infobox Song Contest National Year)), with flexible parameters to suit each contest as needed would work nicely. When this is done a new TfD can be opened and the old templates can be deleted as redundant. WikiProject Eurovision are capable of doing the full implementation, and merges of templates and other such things had already been proposed before this nomination was made. CT Cooper ·talk 15:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing would be replaced or deleted "until a replacement template is ready"; that's what this discussion is (supposed to be) about. "just using the Eurovision template" is not what is proposed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As is stands nothing much has been proposed. CT Cooper ·talk 19:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At the moment, the templates could be merged, because they are very similar in fields and appearance. However, I would like to highlight that the template for Cân i Gymru is probably wrong or, at least, misleading: its fields refer to a "selection", as if it was a national selection for the ESC, but it's not, it's simply a separate competition, which does not lead to any other contest, therefore I suggest to do something different so that the template better suits its scope. I don't know if this could still be done through a merge. Stee888 (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as I have yet to cast my !vote for this template, I shall do so now. Keep until the replacement template has been successfully rolled out across 100s of articles, then renominate for uncontroversial delete. Final tweaking to the replacement is almost complete, and as I pointed out, I am even going to spend as much time as required to the new version changed over, even if it means taking time off work and working without any sleep. People can't say I am not being fair in this process. It will also mean all the current WP:ESC infoboxes will be mass-deleted, and an admin from the project has volunteered to carry that deletion process out once the roll out is completed. Wes Mouse | T@lk 15:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ((Infobox music festival)) doesn't have the parameters to deal with a complex contest like San Remo. The San Remo Music Festival is not a music festival (despite its name) but is a contest that inspired the creation of Eurovision Song Contest - one could say it is an Italian Song Contest, for people of Italy only. And has been used to also select the Italian entry at Eurovision. Wes Mouse | T@lk 20:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps it should be merged into the ESC template, as discussed above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And as I point out above, there are technical means to deal with such matters. I would also remind you about WP:AGF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And as noted, one should also assume the assumption of good faith. Constantly telling someone to AGF is an example of misuse; especially one that is to be avoided in deletion discussions. And casting allegations of canvassing is severe disruption if ever I have seen it. Notifying a project of a mass-number of templates that are up for discussion is not canvassing, it is making them aware of a debate and giving them the option to discuss. Wes Mouse | T@lk 21:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion or merge infobox this specific is unneeded, it isn't even used in the main article on the topic. There is a navbox directing users to each year. Seems the necessary parameters can be added to the music festival or something similar. That said, one post on the project talk page, while a bit over the top in tone I don't think is the worst canvassing offense I've seen. However, the poster would be wise to be reminded that he would do better to just post the link with an "of interest" comment. Montanabw(talk) 01:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Restructuring, which was in the project's pipeline to begin with, regarding proposals to create "all-in-one" universal infoboxes for contests/festivals within Project Eurovision scope, so that they can be used on any of their respective articles regardless of the type of contest. Request to postpone TfD so that the discussions can conclude and may result in other templates within the project to be deleted en-mass. Wes Mouse | T@lk 01:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now – I would support the principle of merging but a replacement template needs to be found or created – after this is done, a new TfD can be opened. For now I think WikiProject Eurovision is capable of figuring out the finer details. As it stands, a merge to the generic music/event templates isn't appropriate unless the parameters of said templates are significantly expanded, so a new generic song contest template may be in order. CT Cooper ·talk 15:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing would be replaced or deleted until a replacement template is ready; that's what this discussion is (supposed to be) about. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I'm glad we're clear on that point. I don't want any drive-by mergers or deletions. Though as it stands I'm doubtful these discussions will end with a clear resolution. CT Cooper ·talk 19:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I was the creator of this template; the template is clearly useful to summarize data about the annual event. If it would be possible to merge it with a similar one, I would support this proposal, but, not only there is no template with similar fields at the moment, but I also think it would be very difficult, nearly impossible, to create such a template, because the rules of the Sanremo Music Festival are different from the rules of other song contests. Therefore, merging this templare with another one would result either in an extremely complex template, or in a template including a small subset of the data which are supported by the existing one (and I think all of these fields are useful). I also would like to point out that the Sanremo Music Festival is related to the Eurovision Song Contest, but it is not (or, at least, not only) a national selection for the European contest. It was created before the ESC, it was also held during the years in which Italy did not compete in the ESC, and its winner is not automatically chosen as the Italian entry for the ESC. It is a different contest. Using a ESC template would therefore be misleading (for example, the ESC template includes the logo of the European contest, but why should it be included in Sanremo Music Festival 2009 article?). Stee888 (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a fork of ((Infobox Eurovision)), to which it is redundant. ABU name suggests Australia, but this is also used for Eurovision competitions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is used on articles such as ABU Radio Song Festival 2012. Eurovision Song Contest are annual contests, ABU Radio Song Festival are biennial. Using the Eurovision infobox caused navigational issues because of this; and also if the Eurovision version were used it caused linking issues at the bottom of the box, when click on the hyperlink. Wes Mouse | T@lk 19:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We tried to use the Eurovision first, and it caused a link issue. For example at the bottom where it provides links to the previous/next contests. Eurovision is yearly, ABU Radio is biennial - using the Eurovision template on ABU Radio would create yearly links and not biennially links. Wes Mouse | T@lk 20:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've already replied to you above, about the technical means which would solve this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge with some sort of overall template for Eurovision or ABU, it's silly to have infoboxes that transclude so few articles. And add any needed parameters. Infoboxes and navboxes are not the same thing, an infobox is not a navbox. Montanabw(talk) 01:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Restructuring, which was in the project's pipeline to begin with, regarding proposals to create "all-in-one" universal infoboxes for contests/festivals within Project Eurovision scope, so that they can be used on any of their respective articles regardless of the type of contest. Request to postpone TfD so that the discussions can conclude and may result in other templates within the project to be deleted en-mass. Wes Mouse | T@lk 01:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote from keep to Redirect to ((Infobox Song Contest)). Both ((Infobox ABU Radio)) and ((Infobox ABU TV)) are now obsolete, their issues have been rectified and merged into a new universal Infobox Song Contest and a history merge of Inofbox Eurovision has been done with that template now redirected to the newer Infobox Song Contest. Wes Mouse | T@lk 13:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've grouped these discussions, as it seems there are shared issues. Please feel free to comment here, or under individual headings.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are definitely not canvassing, and one is looking to stir trouble by falsely accusing users of such. It is clear both are replies to a user's comment, and that does not constitute canvassing. The first "linked allegation" one is in reply to something entirely different and not connected to these TfD's. That discussion is regarding the proposal of adding a new data field to the template so that we can include information about composers/lyricists; to which I stated it be best to put the roll out of that new change on-hold whilst these TfD's conclude. The second "linked allegation" again is certainly not canvassing, and I feel the user is twisting comments out of context in order to attempt to have people blocked so that I am "muted" and they "win" their way in this TfD. Wes Mouse | T@lk 12:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update The universal ((Infobox Song Contest)) has now been created and is in process of being rolled out, so the soon to be obsolete ones that it is replacing should be ready for deletion by the weekend. Wes Mouse | T@lk 16:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This new template appears to be an attempt to preempt the ((Infobox ABU Radio)) discussion, above. It does not appear to address the other nominations in this section, such as those for the ...National Year or ...country templates. If that is the case, please clarify. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rome wasn't built in a day, Andrew. Don't be demonstrating the lack of pragmatism. It is Christmas next week, people do have real lives beyond Wikipedia. The creation of this new universal template took longer than excepted, and its subsequent rollout will take even longer. And once that is done, then the new universal versions for other inforbox will also be created, rolled out, and its predecessors deleted. I think it is time that one stepped down and allowed such process to take it natural course. After all Wikipedia is not a race to the finish line. Wes Mouse | T@lk 11:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So the new template is not intended to replace ...National Year or ...country templates. And who is "Andrew"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
((Infobox Song Contest)) (as noted in a comment made by CT Cooper above) is the template to replace ((Infobox Eurovision)), ((Infobox ABU Radio)), and ((Infobox ABU TV)). The universal designs allows it to be used on any annual contest article. The design of the new version will be modified for similar universal boxes that will have the intention to replace Nation Year and Country versions - all of which have been discussed at WT:ESC in which you also noted the proposal to scrap the "forked" versions and replace with brand new universal designs. The editors who created the original ones will still be credited as being original owners of the previous versions. Wes Mouse | T@lk 14:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think one needs to read a dictionary and learn the definition of "disruptive". There is no plagiarism. The modified work was done by a different editor at User:AxG/Sandbox/12. So I would appreciate that you retract your allegation that I have plagiarised anything. And the new template is not any intention to disrupt these TfD's. You even noted that none of these nominated templates would be merged/deleted until a replacement was made. We have the replacement, now live with it and move on. Wes Mouse | T@lk 15:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, ((Infobox Song Contest)) was created by you; don't blame others for your plagiarism. Secondly, while he may have created ((Infobox Eurovision)), twenty-five people have contributed to making it what it is now. And, lastly, even he says the new template should be deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:56, 18 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 student media
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 and replace as needed Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:03, 14 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 Sherlock Holmes short story
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. There is consensus that the generic ((Infobox short story)) is sufficient for Sherlock Holmes stories — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martijn Hoekstra (talk • contribs) 20:39, 20 January 2015
Support: You have got to be kidding here, there is a totally separate infobox for this? Absurd! Montanabw(talk) 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, it's already a wrapper for ((Infobox short story)) and this is not a merger discussion. Frietjes (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the 'Set in' date in the wrapper is particularly important information here which isn't really suitable for merging. geeoharee (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: duplicate infobox, and some of the entries shouldn't even be there. For example, what's the point to keep 'Set in' when the date of most stories is controversial? Saying "1890, according to William S. Baring-Gould" is not that useful, since his opinion is just as valid as everyone else's, so it is better to discuss the issue of the date in the article itself. --Newblackwhite (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, more parameters of ((Infobox short story)) may be useful, but on the other hand, this wrapper could be expanded or perhaps modularized. —PC-XT+ 00:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC) 00:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still think more parameters may be useful, so if kept, this could be maybe turned into an infobox module. However, if there is not enough of a need for such a module, simply replace and delete it. —PC-XT+ 00:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This is not a Sherlock Holmes fan wiki. There is no need for an infobox which gives the year in which the story is set, the villain and the client. The regular short story infobox should be used instead. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Newblackwhite and Simon Peter Hughes. Superfluous. -- P 1 9 9✉ 15:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion, as above: no need for a separate IB when a generic short story template exists. - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Used rarely enough that replacing it won't be a huge problem, and infobox short story should work well enough. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 17 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 no consensusMartijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No strong opinion It has some features that ((Infobox artifact)) doesn't have... but are these important? CatfishJim and the soapdish 23:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but merge parameters into infobox artifact so relevant material can be incorporated. Fewer than 50 transclusions. Montanabw(talk) 01:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep, not entirely redundant, and this isn't a merge proposal. Frietjes (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I would probably support merging —PC-XT+ 21:55, 7 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 Only Fools and Horses
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.
Delete as redundant and unused —PC-XT+ 21:54, 7 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.
Orphaned and unused Ghana fb templates
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 per prior consensus. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These templates are unused or ophaned. They should be deleted. MicroX (talk) 19:16, 6 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 Satellite awards
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 consensusMartijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep, not entirely redundant, and this is not a merge proposal. Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only differentiation with the film awards infobox is singling out the individual big winners. While that saves a viewer trying to find it in the tables, the Satellites are broken down even further this year. Its infobox would need tweaking for every ceremony. — Wyliepedia 19:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep, not entirely redundant, DirkVE (talk) 13:21, 16 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 Indian awards
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. There is doubt on what to do with the parameters unique to this template Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The Academy Awards use the generic infobox, no reason to Balkanize the rest of the world. If there is a need to merge any parameters into the main infobox, I suggest doing so. Montanabw(talk) 01:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep, not entirely redundant, and this is not a merge proposal. Frietjes (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep, not entirely redundant, DirkVE (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having checked the parameters, I didn't notice any specific to India. Brandmeistertalk 20:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete duplicate. Using synonyms for the field names doesn't make it different or uniquely Indian. -- P 1 9 9✉ 15:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Used in more than 150 articles. --RedtigerxyzTalk 16:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: may be useful, and /doc.--333-blue 14:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing why the template is or should be specific to India, though it does contain fields which do not appear in ((Infobox award)), such as total number of awards, previous names of the award, cash value, etc. If ((Infobox Indian awards)) is upmerged to ((Infobox award)) then functionality should be retained by including the unique parameters, especially as the template is used in at least one featured list - Dadasaheb Phalke Award - with several of the unique parameters in use. What this discussion comes down to is if it is better to have one template with many parameters to select from, or several templates with a smaller selection of targeted parameters. I think there comes a point where the usability of a template with many parameters is less favourable than a targeted template. The question here is regarding the advantage of adding the unique parameters from ((Infobox Indian awards)) to ((Infobox award)), and I think that is probably a discussion that should be held at Template talk:Infobox award - if the decision is that the additional parameters would make ((Infobox award)) too bloated, then ((Infobox Indian awards)) should be kept. In the meantime, until there is a decision to include those unique parameters, I think it best to keep this template. SilkTork✔Tea time 18:21, 26 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 do not merge. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 05:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose creating universal infobox: I suggest creating ((Infobox cue sports)) to encompass everything. Avoids potential US/UK bias.Montanabw(talk) 01:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Pigsonthewing There are many differences in pool and snooker. These infoboxes can never be merged. Gcjdavid (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Only a few of the parameters are same, many of which you would find in most infoxboxes anyway. Snooker is not going to have a use for | home = , | away = , | homecaptain =, | awaycaptain =, | MVP =, | homescore = & | awayscore =. Snooker and pool have far more differences than they have similarities, just because they're both played on a table doesn't mean they should be merged. Shall we merge rugby union and football because they're both played on a pitch, no. I don't see how this benefits the users working in both fields, in fact it could be a hindrance, especially to new users. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose using common sense as the formats of the two infoboxes are very different and would result in a lot of wasted parameters. —Gyaro–Maguus— 17:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, seems pointless given the complete generic nature of the parameters in Template:Infobox Mosconi Cup. better to merge that template with some sort of generic ((infobox sporting event)) template. Frietjes (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with the opposition. It is hard for me to find enough commonalities to support a merge, especially given the idea of merging Mosconi Cup to a sporting event infobox, instead. —PC-XT+ 02:09, 17 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:Equity Awards
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.
Delete per all of the above. Montanabw(talk) 01:20, 7 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.