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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox ucla labor center (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use. Should be substituted and deleted. Alakzi (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. I've replaced it with with a more generic infobox; no need for substitution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 15 March 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox NCAA Division I women's ice hockey season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (5 transclusions)

Template:Infobox NCAA Division I men's ice hockey season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (25 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox NCAA Division I women's ice hockey season with Template:Infobox NCAA Division I men's ice hockey season.

No need to split by gender. Only differences appear to be parameter labels. See also Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Query - @Pigsonthewing: Andy, you're going to have to explain your proposed merge and how it would work in greater detail. Currently, the three season links in these templates are gender-specific (please see examples of template in actual use). Do you propose to include some sort of gender-specific toggle? This is the same issue you have with your proposed merge of the NCAA basketball rankings templates below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A switch would work, yes. Happy for other suggestions to be made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree with Dirtlawyer that the process works best when the nominator outlines the changes that will allow the two templates to be merged well. Any code change needs an owner, who will design, advocate and implement that change. Otherwise, the change and its necessity become unclear. SFB 21:25, 22 March 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox NCAA women's basketball rankings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (9 transclusions)

Template:Infobox NCAA basketball rankings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (37 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox NCAA women's basketball rankings with Template:Infobox NCAA basketball rankings.

No need to split by gender. Only differences appear to be parameter labels. See also Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Query - @Pigsonthewing: Andy, you're going to have to explain your proposed merge and how it would work in greater detail. Currently, the three season links in these templates are gender-specific (please see examples of template in actual use). Do you propose to include some sort of gender-specific toggle? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A switch would work, yes. Happy for other suggestions to be made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 14 March 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox women's national water polo team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (17 transclusions)

Template:Infobox national water polo team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (68 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox women's national water polo team with Template:Infobox national water polo team.

No need to split by gender. Only differences appear to be parameter labels. See also Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - There appears to be at least one gender-specific link (FINA Water Polo World Cup, FINA Women's Water Polo World Cup) that will need to be accounted for. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:54, 14 March 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. There is unanimous support for this proposal. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox education in Canada (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Infobox education in Canada with Template:Infobox school.
No need for a separate template for one country. See also Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as having most of the parameters required. I did not conduct a thorough check, but some test replacement in articles proved to have nothing missing. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Simplicity is best. I don't see any differences that would justify keeping the Canada-specific template around. wia (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Most fields are common between both templates and Canada-specific fields could be added to Infobox school or described using free labels. Henri Watson (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - no need for the redundancy and Infobox school covers everything (and more) than we need. Tgeairn (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. For the reasons previously mentioned. EyeTripleE (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Plenty of free parameters in Infobox school. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There isn't any differences to make it separated. Gemsdare (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Think we can early close this super clear case here. --PanchoS (talk) 18:07, 17 March 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 relisted on 2015 April 4. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:33, 4 April 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 relisted on 2015 April 4. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox dog crossbreed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox dog breed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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. No objections. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Archbishopric (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (14 transclusions)

Template:Infobox Bishopric (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (91 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Archbishopric with Template:Infobox Bishopric.
Very similar templates and subjects. The "Bishopric" template is already used for both types. Add a "type" parameter if needed. See also Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Merge, with the caveat that all functionality and options of both templates be preserved. This looks like the perfect example of two closely related infobox templates that can be consolidated with no adverse consequences. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:13, 16 March 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Underground stock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (55 transclusions)

Template:Infobox train (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (1,324 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Underground stock with Template:Infobox train.
Similar templates for similar subjects. We don't need a separate infobox for each city's railways. See also Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What do we do with "stock type"? I'm not sure if adding a field for a distinction that's specific to the London Underground is a good idea. Alakzi (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • |code=? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's not really a code. How about a new "Category" or "Type" parameter? There's nowhere to specify whether the train's an electric or diesel MU, or whatnot, which seems like an omission; for example, in Shinkansen articles, it might read |type=[[High-speed rail|High-speed]] [[electric multiple unit|EMU]]. Alakzi (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, subject to a suitable outcome to the discussion above about the stock type parameter. A new "type" parameter (situated near Family name?) seems useful and would work for the use case here. Otherwise all the parameters map. Mackensen (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, but only after the "type" field (or an alternative) is implemented. Thryduulf (talk) 04:45, 17 March 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. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox aqueduct navigable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (54 transclusions)

Template:Infobox bridge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (3,851 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox aqueduct navigable with Template:Infobox bridge.

A navigable aqueduct is a type of bridge. See also Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Query What is the limit on the number of fields on an infobox? Currently Template:Infobox bridge has 59 fields, I can see 12 fields in Template:Infobox aqueduct navigable that do not have an equivalent - that would make the combined template have 71 fields. If that's OK, then I have no issue. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No limit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: This was discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 17#Template:Infobox aqueduct navigable, but a merge wasn't done because a different one was proposed. Unless something has changed, or I overlooked something last time, I expect this would be ok. —PC-XT+ 07:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment regarding notice - Notice of this proposed merge has been provided to WikiProject Bridges: [1]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A navigable aqueduct is really no different to a road or railway bridge. Ostrichyearning (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A navigable aqueduct is a type of bridge! --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:19, 21 March 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 delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox india university (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-use infobox which is redundant to ((Infobox university)). Alakzi (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Query - @Alakzi: Are there any significant differences between "Infobox india university' and "Infobox university"? My cursory scan shows only one: the presence of a title parameter, "pro-chancellor," with which I am unfamiliar; I assume this title is either India-specific or institution-specific. If this is the only difference, this unusual title can easily be accounted for by using the "head" and "head_label" parameters of Infobox university. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the only one I spotted, and yes, that's what I thought too. It probably wouldn't hurt adding a parameter for it to ((Infobox university)), either. Alakzi (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alakzi, there are already too many "rare bird" head-of-institution title parameters included in Infobox university; using the existing "head" and "head_label" parameters for one-offs like "pro-chancellor" is exactly what was intended. NENASP -- "not everything needs a separate parameter"; perhaps I should write an essay. LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • haha, perhaps. If it is indeed so rare, then I agree. Alakzi (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • A Google search suggests it to be common in India, albeit not common on Wikipedia. See also mentions in Chancellor (education). Aside: It may be worth running a script to see what values are used in |head_label=, and how often, then deciding whether to create specific parameters for any with a large number of instances. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alakzi, "Pro-Chancellor" is only linked to a total of 7 university articles (see [2]), and only appears in the infobox of 3 of those 7 articles. That's a pretty rare bird (cf. over 19,000 articles that use Infobox university). In all 7 cases, it's a subservient position, not a C-level office. When we include these kinds of options, they often get used in addition to the university c-level offices (i.e. "president," "chancellor," etc.), contributing to overly long infoboxes in practice, and the growth of cruft. In the three instances where it's been thought important enough to include the office in a university infobox, editors have used the optional "head_label" and "head" parameters to accomplish that. Best to leave well enough alone. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks to the both of you for the research. Pro-chancellor appears to often be a ceremonial post; the pro-chancellor is the representative of the chancellor in their absence. At other times, the term appears to be used synonymously with "deputy vice-chancellor" or "pro-vice-chancellor", i.e. an actual officer. Alakzi (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nominator's rationale. This template serves no independent function from Infobox university. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:44, 15 March 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 delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Lancaster college (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox residential college)). I've replaced the only transclusion of it to demonstrate. Alakzi (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nominator's rationale. We are not in the habit of creating one-off templates for single articles, at least not without a very good reason. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:50, 15 March 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 delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Navbox used in only one article.  Gadget850 ^talk 08:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator's rationale. The template creator, User:Eustress, is a long-time contributor; his edit summary upon template creation indicates that more stand-alone articles were contemplated in 2008, but it appears things evolved in a different direction with a single "list of" article that includes all of the "religion" scouting badges. The single list (with no need for a unifying navbox) probably makes more sense (see Religious emblems programs (Boy Scouts of America)). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:05, 14 March 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 delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Flashpoint season 1 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Flashpoint season 2 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and redundant to the list article. Alakzi (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unused template -- for good reason. All of the links are section-specific redirects to the list of episodes article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:02, 14 March 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 delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Colleges Nepal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and redundant to ((Infobox university)) or ((Infobox academic division)). Alakzi (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Query - @Alakzi: Was this template being used for any articles before its TfD nomination? If so, can you identify them? At present, it appears to be an orphan. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to my knowledge. The author does not appear to have added it to any articles. Alakzi (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, thanks. Well, you've notified the template creator. It appears that this template duplicates the basic functions of Infobox university, with no significant differences. If the creator can provide an explanation for its separate existence, I'm willing to listen, but I am otherwise inclined to delete this as an unused template. FYI, the creator has not been active for five months. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator's rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:25, 18 March 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 redirect/merge. Feel free to change the primary name if there is something more appropriate. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox athletics competition (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Entirely redundant to ((Infobox multi-sport competition event)); even the parameter names are all the same, with the exception of (({competition))} (corresponds to (({games))}). Alakzi (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - So what if it is a majority of redundant content. Think of the chaos and mass learning curve required of people used to using that template. Games and Competition are not the exact same semantic which will require novices to have to do further research to figure out what you are talking about. To delete this is unnecessary over-officiousness. This is a heavily used and good looking template across many different competitions. You will need a bot to locate all the transclusions and then confuse any future user who works from memory because of unnecessary housekeeping. There are much better things to do with your time. Trackinfo (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll decide on how to spend my time, but thank you for your concern. There will be no "chaos and mass learning curve"; the infoboxes are the exact same, save for the one parameter name. (({competition))} can simply be added as an alias of (({games))} to ((Infobox multi-sport competition event)) and ((Infobox athletics competition)) redirected. Alakzi (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Mostly per the reasons above. Good template and heavily-used as well. I also concur about the fact that Alakzi's time probably best be spent elsewhere as well. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 14:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can !vote any way you like, but why do you have to be condescending? Alakzi (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because by nominated a well-organized and highly-used template, you're wasting your time and everyone else's time. I just think that there are more constructive ways in which you could contribute to the site, that's all. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 18:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Considering that the only effect this will have on you, personally, is that it'll give you the opportunity to use a template that's actually documented, it is unclear to me how I might be wasting your time. Alakzi (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think there are more constructive ways that you could contribute to Wikipedia than writing articles about people who run around or throw things for fun, but I wouldn't presume to try to stop you from doing so to the best of your abilities. The claim that the template in question is "highly used" (and really, compared to others we have, and have merged, its (cough) 79 transclusions does not make it "highly used") is immaterial. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as redundant, but a useful name, to avoid the "chaos" [sic] predicted. Note that neither "game" nor "competition" is shown as a label, and the "multi-sport" template already allows either parameter name to be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Query - @Trackinfo:@Sportsguy17: Apart from the template/infobox name, are there particular parameters/fields/datapoints that should be used in the athletics/track & field event infobox that are not included in the multi-sport event infobox, or vice versa? Are there particular parameters/fields/datapoints of the multi-sport event infobox that should be excluded from the athletics/track & field event infobox? I am a frequent editor of sports articles, and I would like to understand your concerns. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes. If you look at the example usage for the template at 2011 World Championships in Athletics – Men's 100 metres, immediately below the template is my insertion for the official television coverage of the event. This is more and more common. Why not include it as part of the template so it fits better. Also below each, frequently, is an entire championship template. It would be nice to make it a married look, consistent across all events with a championship or series though technically I see a width issue. Frankly, I think the biggest problem with this template is its inconsistent usage. The more times it is inserted into championship events, the better each of those articles and series looks. But it takes a more sophisticated editor to use a template properly. The learning curve limits the number of usages and the number of people who can confidently use it. Which is why I object to changing it too much or renaming it. That only serves to further reduce the number of people who will use it to beautify wikipedia articles in this subject matter. Trackinfo (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're truly concerned by the "learning curve", you may begin by documenting the template; after you've finished, you might want to compare its parameters with ((Infobox multi-sport competition event))'s. Video is, evidently, not unique to athletics. Any style changes that may need to be made to the sidebars have nothing to do with this nomination. If "Infobox multi-sport competition event" is thought to be confusing, the template can be renamed.

Here is a side-by-side comparison of the two templates:

2011 World Championships Men's 100 metres Yohan Blake became the event's youngest ever champion. Venue Daegu Stadium Dates 27 August (heats) 28 August (finals) Competitors 74 from 61 nations Medallists   Yohan Blake (9.92)  Jamaica (JAM)   Walter Dix (10.08)  United States (USA)   Kim Collins (10.09)  Saint Kitts and Nevis (SKN) ←2009 2013→

Men's 100 metres at the 2011 World Championships Yohan Blake became the event's youngest ever champion. Venue Daegu Stadium Dates 27 August (heats) 28 August (finals) Competitors 74 from 61 nations Medalists   Yohan Blake (9.92)  Jamaica (JAM)   Walter Dix (10.08)  United States (USA)   Kim Collins (10.09)  Saint Kitts and Nevis (SKN) ← 2009 2013 →

And here's the code, which is the exact same for both:

((Infobox ...
|event = Men's 100 metres
|competition = 2011 World Championships
|image = [[File:Yohan Blake Daegu 2011.jpg|250px]]
|caption = [[Yohan Blake]] became the event's youngest ever champion.
|venue = [[Daegu Stadium]]
|dates = 27 August (heats)<br>28 August (finals)
|competitors = 74
|nations = 61
|gold = [[Yohan Blake]] (9.92)<br>((FlagATHCH|JAM|2011 World))
|silver = [[Walter Dix]] (10.08)<br>((FlagATHCH|USA|2011 World))
|bronze = [[Kim Collins]] (10.09)<br>((FlagATHCH|SKN|2011 World))
|prev = [[2009 World Championships in Athletics – Men's 100 metres|2009]]
|next = [[2013 World Championships in Athletics – Men's 100 metres|2013]]
))

Alakzi (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as redundant, but a useful name —PC-XT+ 07:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Come on folks, you really want to keep a separate infobox just because one parameter is slightly different? — This, that and the other (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not anymore, actually; I've made (({competition))} an alias of (({games))}. Alakzi (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm happy for this to be redirected as long as any additional parameters from the athletics template are supported by the multi-sport one. It may also be a good idea to suggest a more generalised name for the template if it can be used on non-multi-sport pages, e.g. Template:Infobox competition event. The same can apply for World Championship swimming events, cycling etc. SFB 12:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - @Trackinfo:@Sportsguy17: I've been following this TfD discussion for several days, and the logic for consolidation/merger of these two templates in this instance seems to be overwhelming. The two infoboxes share 100% of their parameters (albeit one parameter has a different field name). The only differences appear to be in the rendering: one uses a slightly larger type font and renders a run-on infobox header. At this point, I think we should be discussing details like how the merged infobox will appear, rather than arguing about whether we merge two templates that are effectively the same in all meaningful particulars. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since @Sillyfolkboy: has been the person to insert the template, I will defer to his judgement. I foresee when the next major championship rolls around, we will have some 40 plus event articles to create and most likely I won't initiate unless I find an article or group left out. If the pattern holds true, the initiating editors will not use this template. So it will be up to a later editor to add it. I may add it once or twice but will discover its a lot of work. Other editors the same. SFB only did it on prominent articles rather than all 40 plus. My real goal is to make it easy to insert so it will improve our layout and consistency of all these grouped articles--preferably even back into history. Right now they are not consistent. I'm surprised occasionally to discover some individual competition articles don't even exist. Recentism prevails, so new articles get more attention. To this template; The proper layout of the title IS an advantage. Italicized, probably not as important but it doesn't hurt the layout. Using an appropriate term in the description IS an advantage rather than confusing new users with an awkward semantic. The extra half linefeed after medalists, probably unimportant. Overall, its probably unimportant detail. Its also completely unimportant to screw with something that IS working. It ain't broke . . . Trackinfo (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Trackinfo: I am a frequent editor of sports-related topics, including track & field bios, and I am one of the first TfD participants to oppose proposed template merges that overlook the practical and/or unintended consequences of merges that are not thought through. I am not in favor of merging every related template into uber templates for the sake of merging. Really. I'm not. In this case, however, there is literally no difference between the parameters of the two templates. The existing "athletics" (i.e. track and field) template does a marginally better job of presenting the infobox header, but that could be improved upon, too, to draw a clearer distinction between the individual event (e.g., "men's 100 metres") and the multi-event umbrella competition (e.g., "2013 World Championships in Athletics"). And as suggested by SillyFolkBoy above, the existing template name ("template:Infobox athletics competition") can be retained as a redirect after the merge, so that you may continue to use that template name if you choose. If you have other layout and design issues with either existing template, now would be the time to voice them, so that the resulting merged template appears as you would like in actual use. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

as suggested by SillyFolkBoy above, the existing template name ("template:Infobox athletics competition") can be retained as a redirect ... I suggested that a mere 31 minutes after the nom. It's not the only thing that's been conveniently overlooked; there's no longer a difference between the two templates' parameters, either. It is telling that what started as "chaos and mass learning curve" has devolved into "if it ain't broke ...". Alakzi (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the header for the athletics competition (italicised main article, normal text for specific event) is superior and I think it should be carried over to the multi-sport template. The "at the" phrasing in the header doesn't really help with contextualising the subject and a line break and italics better way of doing this (e.g. see swimming example on the multi-sport documentation). In overall design, I also prefer the multi-sport boxes delineation – complete lines in the athletics box sections makes the box as a whole feel more disjointed. SFB 20:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• merge/redirect, clearly redundant. Frietjes (talk) 21:59, 3 April 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.