The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was redirect to ((RMnac)). The discussion about how to reword ((RMpmc)) is leaning towards "non-admin closure" as the text, with the wikilink pointing to WP:RMPMC. Due to the concern with the wording/linking of the template, I am taking this into account; the result means RMpmc is identical to RMnac. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:RMpmc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't see a valid need for this. Users granted the page mover right are normally highly experienced in RMs. I don't see why page movers should have to declare their status as a page mover when closing RMs. — Music1201 ^talk 23:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Since page movers are not admins, they are required to disclose this fact at the time of discussion closure. The only other alternative is ((RMnac)), which is now reserved for non-admins who are also non-page movers. Hope this helps.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  01:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Pagemovers aren’t administrators and that should be noted when closing an RM. Sure, they’re more experienced than non-rms (hence why they have the user right), but that shouldn’t mean the fact of user rights shouldn’t be disclosed. I created this template because of these reasons. I’d like to see other people’s opinions on this. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but for a different reason to the nominator. I don't think it's correct to imply that page movers have any extra authority, which is what the layperson will infer from "page mover". Unless there's a consensus for some sort of change to the RM closing guidelines or NAC guidelines, non-admin closers should continue using the NAC template. Sorry if that's blunt, I do appreciate this was made in good faith. Jenks24 (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's easy to understand how new users might infer that page movers have "extra authority". I certainly inferred that about admins many years ago. Then I found out that in most cases, if not all, I was wrong. Neither administrator nor page mover nor any of the user rights that an editor may receive gives them any particular authority over other editors on Wikipedia. They simply receive tools that are more sensitive than other editors have; that does not mean that they are given any superior authority over non-admins or non-page movers. To believe otherwise is to say it's okay for an administrator to "pull the 'I'm an admin' card" to try to affect consensus, etc. We all know how wrong that is.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  18:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• We are a lot more lax about NACs at RM than most other consensus finding venues and I think that's a good thing. But I think it is worth noting when users closing discussions haven't been vetted by the community; it is certainly good practice, as noted below. And I don't think we can consider page movers to be vetted by the community because if you look at the requests for permissions page you can see people being granted the right who have next to experience with RM. I think that's probably fine (although it's significant scope creep from what was proposed), but should people who have been granted this right have a template that (rightly or wrongly) implies they have been through some sort of vetting process for closing RMs? I don't think so.
  It always annoyed me when I was a non-admin to see admins pontificating on stuff like this so I'm sorry to do it and feel a bit hypocritical, but I feel passionately about the RM process and I believe this is in its best interests. "Authority" was the wrong word to use above. Jenks24 (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No no, please don't feel negative in any way about your !vote – you make good points that are vivid, valid and clear. The thing is, this template is in no way meant to mean that we page movers are anything but experienced at renaming pages and at closing discussions as nac. That's all. If what you say is true, and inexperienced editors are being granted the user right, then whoever is doing so should be taken to task. Not in this venue of course, but in another correct venue. This template when used to close a RM should only tell the discussing editors that an experienced page mover has closed the request – nothing more, nothing less.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  19:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Page movers would need to use ((RMnac)) then. FYI, I made an update to this after I noticed this template. I'm kind of indifferent, to be honest. While I think the template doesn't hurt, the reasons cited by Jenks24 make sense. Actually, very weak keep per the text in the section. non-admin, non-pagemover comment :) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Andy M. Wang: I don't believe that text ever had consensus. It appears these closing instructions have been routinely changed without discussion. See below. ~ Rob^Talk 19:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah I do agree it didn't have consensus. When I found the template and addition, I softened the "must" wording and linked it to the page mover talk page for more general awareness. Struck my !vote, as I genuinely still don't have strong opinions about this. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant to ((RMnac)) or ((nac)). I'd like to note that there is no policy or guideline that requires non-admins to self identify, although it is considered best practice to do so. There's a whole lot of "required" or "must" being thrown around, and that's entirely inaccurate. And no, the statement at WP:RM/CI doesn't qualify as consensus on this issue. See [1] [2] for the diffs where an editor gradually strengthened this statement over a period of multiple months while calling it a "minor fix" and said he was "redoing" things. ~ Rob^Talk 19:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that "required"/"must" is overstating things, just for the record. Jenks24 (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep page movers should be allowed to choose whatever template to identify themselves with. As a page mover, I did not realize this template exists until now. SSTflyer 06:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are not alone.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  15:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Page mover closures should be seperated from non-admin closures at RM because page movers have access to rights which normal non-admins are unable to use. A large number of closes at RM require the closer to move the page to a title which has non-trivial page history, thus disallowing anyone but an admin to move to it. However, page movers are able to indirectly do this through the use of suppressredirect. Non-admins have to file a technical request or use ((db-move)) to achieve the same effect. They also have the ability to use move-subpages. Despite this, it's also important that we separate page mover closures from admin closures, as in some messy situations, admin tools are required. Omni Flames (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jenks24. I think there should be a distinction between the page move permission, which is a technical ability to move certain pages, and the question about who is qualified to perform RM closes. The former is a technical permission granted by admins on reqest, based on some loose guidelines, with a fairly low bar for acceptance. Performing non-admin closes, however, does not require any permission, but it is up to the individual to decide whether they are ready to carry out that administrative function. In my opinion the bar for the latter should be higher than the bar for getting page mover rights. Closing a move request requires a lot of judgement, and a thorough understanding of the policies, guidelines and precedents. Now I am not in any way saying that only admins should close move requests. I performed hundreds of non-admin closures myself before getting the bit, and there is no better way to gain experience in admin duties than to do them in a non-admin capacity first. But significantly, I did not start performing those closures until I'd already been active at RM as a participant for an extended amount of time, and thoroughly understood how it worked. I also limited myself to the most obvious ones initially, before tackling harder ones after learning some more about it. So, in short, I think we should delete this template because it implies that page movers have more authority to close move requests than other non-admins do, whereas I don't think they do necessarily, particularly as the right is being granted routinely to people without a lot of prior RM experience.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds to me as if there's a serious accusation in there somewhere. Page movers are expected to have the same experience that you had before "getting the bit". They should not only have unchallenged (or even challenged) page-move experience, they are also expected to have experience closing discussions as a non-admin. If you know of someone who is granting the user right to those who do not have the expected experience as cited in the closing instructions, then they should be taken to task in another, correct venue. Since this is all still pretty new, such temporary loose allowance should be forgiven because it shouldn't be too harmful; however, the page mover's expected experience should be taken as seriously as you deem it should above, now and in the future.  What's in your palette? Paine  16:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Paine Ellsworth: I'm not sure if I'd phrase it as an accusation, because I'm pretty sure everyone has acted in good faith here, both those applying for the page mover and the admins granting it. What is lacking though, is any sort of guidance on whether this permission does indeed grant extra rights to close RMs, and indeed whether experience with closing RMs is necessary. You suggest that someone granted the permission should be close to adminship in terms of experience, at least in the narrow area of RMs and page move experience (obviously other experience such as AIV and AfD would not be relevant here). But I'm pretty sure some of the people so far granted it are a long way off what would pass an RfA, even if only RMs were taken into consideration. Again, that's not to accuse anybody, because there's nothing in the rules that says you need to be close to adminship standards. The guidelines say 6 months tenure and 3,000 edits, which is certainly nowhere near current RfA levels. I think the best way to tackle this is to clarify that the page mover right is a technical right, not something that confers more or less right to close RMs, and that is why I suggested deleting this template. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, what I suggested may be a bit more harshly strict than the reality, as closure experience using nac and RMnac is desired but not necessary. I agree that the page mover right is only a technical one, that is, having the user right means only that a technical page move, specifically the move of a page over a redirect that has more than one edit, can be made without the aid of an admin. And that is the information, the only information, that this template gives those who are involved with the closed page move discussion. Page movers are here to help with the backlogs and free administrators to spend more time with other duties. For the ability to make technical moves and the ability to inform those involved in page move debates that a page move will be performed immediately, not having to wait for administrative action, page movers need both the user right and this template.  What's in your palette? Paine  19:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: So I recently joined the usergroup and have been involved in RMs these past few days. I've stuck with using only ((Rmnac)) because I feel that there is no need to communicate additional move capacities being in the usergroup. Readers will see that the page has been moved, and everyone moves on, you know what I mean? and it's great. If people want to add an addendum that they have additional technical abilities, perhaps just hard-code it or something. I'm starting to lean weak delete (with due respect to those !voting keep) because it seems a bit attention-grabbing and badge-like, and very solid reasons have been given by Jenks24 and Amakuru, who I believe to be RM regulars. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good points have been made for both sides, and you make good points. It is supposed to grab attention to inform debaters that their page move, if allowed, won't go into some backlog list to wait on overworked admins. It is a badge in that it adds a larger responsibility to those who wear it, the responsibility to make the best decision possible for the article in question based upon policies and guidelines mentioned in the rationales, and on those not mentioned and yet apply. Almost anybody can move a page, but admins and pms are expected to do it correctly every time. And you'd be surprised how some people won't "move on" – they'll wait until you least expect it and start in again. Like any user right, it's really more of a privilege, but that aside, I think debaters deserve to know that a "moved" decision will take place immediately. With this template, they can see that at a glance.  What's in your palette? Paine  07:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: Although I !voted keep, I strongly disagree with your statement that "page movers are expected to have the same experience that you had before getting the bit". That implies that page movers should almost have enough experience to pass an RFA, which is completely untrue. Just take myself for instance, I'm a page mover, but if I submitted an RFA at this very moment, it would be NOTNOW closed in about two seconds. Omni Flames (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No question that I was harsh or strict in my words about what's expected, as I noted above. While page movers should have quite a bit of page-move experience, I personally would like to see pms who have experience with nac closures in other areas like deletion discussions and RfCs; however, neither nac nor RMnac closure experience is required to become a page mover. It's mostly about having good sense, though, and learning how to perform round-robin page moves. And it is just one of many qualifications needed to pass an RfA. Frankly, the input I've seen up to now from you in this small area of WP editing has shown such good sense that at first I thought you were an admin. So if that's what you want just be patient and get more editing time under your belt. I'd support your RfA right now, but then I weigh the editing quality I see a lot heavier than the amount of time one's been editing. Anyway, suffice to say you are correct and I was pretty much giving my own absurd opinion as to what should be expected of a page-mover applicant.  What's in your palette? Paine  12:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: Ah, I see your point now. I suppose that those that do become page movers probably do have near the amount of experience at RM that would be expected to pass an RFA, however that doesn't mean that they'd have, say, the level of content work required. Omni Flames (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Since this template has WP procedural uses, and not used outside of RM, would a no consensus close result in retention per WP:TFDCI, or deletion per WP:RMCI? I bring this up because RM has a big stake in this template, and RMCI procedures may apply to this. If this is no consensus, I suggest that the potential closer should elaborate on deletion/retention. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As an example of what I'm talking about, take a look at page mover requests for permission page (current revision that I'm looking at while typing this). People are being granted this userright who have next to no experience participating in RM. If an editor who has been granted this right suddenly decides to start closing RMs they should not be able to use a template that makes it appear like they have been vetted in some way about their knowledge/experience with the RM process. Jenks24 (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jenks24: Yes, but the purpose of this template is not to indicate that the user closing the request has any more experience at RM than anyone else, or has some kind of special authority, rather, it's to show that the closer has additional rights not normally available to non-admins which can assist them in closing complicated discussions. Omni Flames (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there any other processes on the project where people use templates to indicate which particular rights they used to carry out an action? Jenks24 (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • In a reverse fashion, the two that first come to mind are the nac and RMnac. They show which rights a user doesn't have as they carry out a discussion closure. While both of those appear the same – "non-admin closure" – the links are different to show a different purpose for each template. In those cases it then appears to be important moreso to show what rights discussion closers do not have rather than those they have. RMpmc gives a more positive bit of info to debaters: that their closer can carry out the page move round-robin fashion if necessary in order to do so immediately without the aid of an admin.  What's in your palette? Paine  11:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) To editor Jenks24: Here's one thing I'm not crazy about... "closed by a page mover" seems like a phrase that is wanting. We want to show that the discussion was closed by a non-admin who has the page mover right, not just a "page mover", which is a phrase that could describe non-admins and admins. Maybe that's what I'm searching for... some phrase that does the job without actually overdoing it. The things going through my mind right now seem too long, such as "closed by a non-admin with the page mover user right". That's what I think should be said, but in fewer words if possible. I'll crunch it some more after I catch a few zzzs.  What's in your palette? Paine  10:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, after some thought, one condensed version would be (extended-mover closure). Well, it's a start. I'm going to suggest it on the talk page of the template.  What's in your palette? Paine  16:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit Page movers closing a discussion are on the same standing as any other NAC closer, they just have a technical tool. If this is useful to show that they are also enacting the move somehow that is OK - but this should call out that this is being done as NAC. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I also favor maximal informational content over not, and disclosing that that closer has the technical means of carrying out pretty much all moves is a good thing. That said, PaleAqua's suggestion that this be revised to something like "non-admin closure: page mover" has merit and should be considered... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or retarget to Template:RMnac. Since page movers do not get any discussion-closing privileges above what non-admins already have, there is no reason why there needs to be such a template. Steel1943 (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to potential closers. There's an ongoing poll at Template talk:RMpmc to change the wording of the template. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 14:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1[edit]

• Delete per Jenks24; it implies extra authority that doesn't exist. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To editor Tavix: If it didn't explicitly imply extra authority, that is, if it appeared only as "non-admin closure" and only linked to the information about page movers (same link it has now), would that make a difference? The reason I ask is because this is the change that appears to be what editors seek the most on the template's talk page.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  07:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that change is possible. I liken it to the earlier example of closing TFD's with a (closed by a template editor) tag. It doesn't give that user any more authority to close TFD discussions, it just means that person has permission to do more with templates than other people. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly. And that is the only information that should be conveyed. Just as ((RMnac)) is a bit more specific than ((nac)), this template is a bit more specific still, and it seems that most editors on the talk page of the template agree that this template does not have to actually appear outwardly any differently than the other two templates appear – it should just convey information (via linkage) that might be helpful to RM participants.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  15:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually template editors are more expected to close discussions and are prohibited advised against doing many edits without a concensus building process otherwise. It is one of the reasons for the strictor criteria for granting that right. PaleAqua (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a bit confused with this comment, specifically "...template editors are more expected to close discussions...". The only additional privileges that the template editor user right provides is editing pages with template protection, creating editnotices and bypassing the titie creation blacklist. The right's page (as currently written) states in no way that being a template editor alone gives the respective non-admin the allowance to make their discussion closes less controversial, even if it is about forming consensus to make a possibly-controversial change to a template. The template editor guideline states that there should be a strong consensus supporting the change to the template that the template editor may carry out, not that the template editor has a stronger say in determining consensus for such discussions. In fact, Wikipedia:Template editor#Editing disputes even, in one way or another, states this somewhat and is similar to stating that just because a non-admin is a template editor doesn't give them the permission to supervote close a discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Understanding of WP:Consensus is important for TEs in general, like for requests on templates that have wide impact. Perhaps what PaleAqua meant was that, other than this new "page mover" group, closing discussions and fulfilling requests might naturally be a larger aspect of TE responsibilities in general. Although the analogy that TE is to TPROT as Page mover is to RM is wrong, since TPROTs are usually opened after consensus is achieved. But there's no obvious guideline that prohibits TEs from not having a say in template design and enact changes, whereas having a say and moving is largely discouraged at RM per WP:Supervote. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly they have an expanded role in that regards and thus make an imperfect analogy for page movers. See Wikipedia:Template editor#When to seek discussion for template changes for example. Notice from WP:TPEREVOKE for example that they are required to determine consensus before making changes; which means for example that the request made at TPE truly have consensus and likely don't have other issues. Such discussions might not be as formal as requested moves. PaleAqua (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Template:RMnac (essentially delete). As any "experienced and uninvolved registered editors in good standing are allowed to close requested move [discussions], it makes no difference whether or not one has the technical ability to implement the determined result, therefore there is no need to differentiate this from the normal ((RMnac)).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may not make a difference to some editors, but it may make a difference to editors who want a page moved, who have already waited one to two weeks or more, and who want to know that the closer has the technical ability to engage the page move immediately rather than to make them wait even longer on an overworked admin. And there can be no "retarget" since this template is not a redirect.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  10:38, 1 July 2016 (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).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus, but there seem to be concerns about where this navbox is pointing. If the sidebars end up pointing to the same place(s) as the navbox, then I see NPASR. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2016 Libertarian Primaries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant with ((US 2016 presidential elections series)) and ((United States presidential election, 2016)). Most of the links point to the same page. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose based on this rationale, at least. Those two templates don't contain the state primary/caucus links, so they aren't redundant. If you find another template which does have state links, I might reconsider. ~ Rob^Talk 01:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The state links are not articles about individual states's Libertarian primaries but sections of other articles covered by ((State Results of the 2016 U.S. presidential election)). The link that actually points to a stand-alone article has been approved for merging per Talk:Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016#Merger proposal. The same applies for the Green template. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 11:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The main links are to sections of articles listed in other navboxes, which shouldn't transclude this template, but section links can be useful and there are also relevant links in the header. If this doesn't hurt the articles, it could provide benefit, in my opinion, but I could see deleting it if it adds to navbox creep (or if more header links are merged.) The same goes for the Green template. —PC-XT+ 22:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC) 22:12, 2 July 2016 (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).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus at this point in time. If the election series infoboxen end up containing the Green informatoin, then there would be reason to relist. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2016 Green Primaries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant with ((US 2016 presidential elections series)) and ((United States presidential election, 2016)). Only two of the links in this template go to different pages. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose based on this rationale, at least. Those two templates don't contain the state primary/caucus links, so they aren't redundant. If you find another template which does have state links, I might reconsider. ~ Rob^Talk 01:11, 18 June 2016 (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).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus to merge. However, feel free to explore rewriting one (economist) as a wrapper for the other (academic). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox economist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox academic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox economist with Template:Infobox academic.
I'm a PhD student in economics. As a profession, economists have a lot of hubris, but even I recognize that we don't need our own infobox. The only advantage of this infobox that I can distinguish is that it provides the more economics-specific "field" label instead of "sub-discipline", but that's not a big enough advantage to warrant the infobox. There are even some advantages of using the academic infobox, which has fields like "notable works" and "notable ideas".

Basically, redundant. ~ Rob^Talk 07:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, you may aspire to be an academic, but most economists work outside academia. In fact, many of the most important economists were not academics. A few examples: Thomas Mun, William Petty, Richard Cantillon, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, Henry George, Alan Greenspan. We should keep the templates separate. But if you like some of the features of the academic infobox, why not add them to the economist infobox? Anthon.Eff (talk)

Speaking of, can I request someone add doctoral advisor field to the economist infobox. I know I should try to figure it out, but I don't want to mess anything up.Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – has features like RePEc which don't pertain to academic infoboxes. And the academic infobox has a lot of stuff that is useless for economists. – S. Rich (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid point. Can those features be included in other infobox templates? --bender235 (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Anthon.Eff, Smmurphy, and Srich32977: The name of the infobox doesn't really matter if its content is a good match for the articles on economists. What fields exist in ((Infobox economist)) that don't exist or have close equivalents in ((Infobox academic))? The only thing I see that isn't already in the academic infobox is RePEc, which I hadn't noticed before. That could be thrown in the footnotes of ((Infobox academic)), I suppose, but that's not really great. Would anyone object to me withdrawing this nomination but rewriting this as a wrapper of ((Infobox academic)) with additional parameters for RePEc? That would give us all the features of ((Infobox academic)) while keeping our own fields. It also makes maintenance easier, which is my intention with this nomination. ~ Rob^Talk 04:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite as a wrapper, to improve the economist template without affecting the academic one, per nom —PC-XT+ 05:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So memorials and repec are added in the wrapper (or possibly memorials are added to the academic infobox) and field/sub_discipline and school_tradition/movement are redundant but added to the wrapper for compatibility? I am happy either way (keep or merge), and approve making anything easier. Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure exactly how I'd do the wrapper; I would try to preserve formatting as much as possible, so I'd need to do some mock-ups and compare to see what's most similar to the current state. Right now, we use ((Infobox person)) as the basis for the infobox and add an extra infobox "child" template to the bottom for additional economics-specific parameters which aren't included in ((Infobox person)). If we converted this to a wrapper of ((Infobox academic)), we'd use ((Infobox academic)) as the base (giving us all the functionality/fields from there that we don't currently have) and either a hardcoded bit of text in the footnotes field of ((Infobox academic)) or a child template to handle RePEc and other extra parameters (like we have now, but with far fewer specific parameters since ((Infobox academic)) covers quite a bit of it). The advantage of this is in the maintenance cost; if ((Infobox academic)) has to be updated to change something for whatever reason, this would change along with it. Also, if they ever added more fields to that infobox, it would be very easy to also add them to the economist infobox. ~ Rob^Talk 06:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not sure on how to do the wrapper, please consider how us less-techno-savy editors would work with it. My point is that simple templates are more useful for ordinary editors. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Srich32977: I'm only unsure in the sense that I have a few different ideas on how it could work and I'd want to create all of the possible alternatives and compare the output to find the most similar. In terms of how the end-user uses the templates, nothing would change. I would ensure all fields stay the same. ~ Rob^Talk 21:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• comment, both of these are already wrappers for ((infobox person)), so it would be useful to see a sandbox example of the proposed revised wrapper solution. Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite as a wrapper Largely redundant. LK (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the academic infobox as is. I'm working on a BLP now and this RfC notice popped-up indicating a merge was being considered. The academic infobox is already quite detailed without adding more to it. If the rewrite as a wrapper doesn't add more to the academic infobox, I will support the rewrite. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:58, 5 July 2016 (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).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted here. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 21:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox KHL team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox hockey team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

not much in the KHL team template that's not already in the generic hockey team template. so, no real reason for keeping a second infobox template. just merge them. Frietjes (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The same can be said about Template:Nationalliga Team and Template:Infobox Pro hockey team as both are useless and rarely used. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2016 (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).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. - Nabla (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox GET team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and duplicates ((infobox hockey team)). Frietjes (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2016 (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).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Userfied to User:Rich Farmbrough/Template:Edit filter noticeboard navbox. I didn't userfy the dependent module. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Edit filter noticeboard navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; not working & unclear what it is meant for - an abandoned experiment? JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I should note also it has a module, Module:Edit filter board archives, which is also unused apart from this template. Depending on the outcome here that might also need deleting.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, simply unfinished. This is meant to replicate Module:Admin board archives, or its predecessor. Essentially it is simply not finished. I am busy over the next week or so, but will try to get this completed of G7'd as soon as possible. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  
  • @Rich Farmbrough: Would you be amicable to this being userfied while you work on it? ~ Rob^Talk 21:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • By all means. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:42, 2 July 2016 (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).