< November 10 November 12 >

November 11

Template:Military units

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template contains original research. Wikisaurus (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really a sidebar. It might look like one, but sidebar and navbox are used for navigation, this isn't that. This is content. In the same fashion as infoboxes shouldn't list information that isn't present somewhere in the article, so shouldn't this. This should follow WP:TG where it says Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content, but if it's already used, then at least make it verifiable. Technically speaking, this doesn't even use the Sidebar code, so even technically it isn't one. --Gonnym (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I expect you are right. And it isn't an infobox either or else sources would be required on challenge (such as here?). So, it may well need sources but it doesn't need deleting. (Or made into a genuine sidebar?!). Thincat (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2018 (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).

Template:Geobox

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. There's a consensus to replace every instance of ((Geobox)) with a more specific Infobox and then delete it. Conversion must obviously be done carefully to make sure no relevant information is lost. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A breakdown of the geobox transclusions:
  • Category:Geobox usage tracking for river type (0) → Already resolved at this tfd
  • Category:Geobox usage tracking for protected area type (0) → ((Infobox protected area)) (8,762)
  • Category:Geobox usage tracking for building type (0) → ((Infobox building)) (19,020)
Note there are dozens of building infobox templates that may be appropriate ((Infobox church)), ((Infobox museum)), etc.

There are multiple different WP:TFDs going for the individual sub-templates of this so I figured it was time to get a final, all encompassing nomination to put the debate to bed. I am recommending that we finally fully deprecate any and all uses of ((geobox)). Every single use of the template has a much better infobox that can be used. Geobox was a great template when it was first created, but it has some serious flaws now. The biggest issue is that it is WAY too broad. You have parameters for geographical features like (({elevation))} that were never meant to be applied to structures. Similarly you have parameters like (({author))} or (({owner))} that have no meaning for a geographical feature.

If there are parameters missing from templates, those can always be added (see the ongoing discussion at ((Infobox river)). But at this point, I don't think it makes any sense to continue to maintain this template.

To be clear

A support/delete vote here is saying that ((geobox)) should be 100% deprecated and deleted in favor of the other templates.
An oppose/keep vote means that the template should be kept and maintained.

--Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Previous deletion discussions

@Rehman, Keith D, Hike395, Bermicourt, Shannon1, AussieLegend, Mythdon, Ruhrfisch, Pigsonthewing, and Capankajsmilyo: pinging all those who took part in the discussion for geobox-river (both pro and con). --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kpalion: lets continue the discussion at Talk:Sigismund Bell about finding the best template for that page. For the sake of this discussion about ((geobox)) it should be noted that the page you mentioned was never using ((geobox|bell))... It in fact was using ((geobox|monument)) before I changed it here to facilitate better tracking as I converted the pages. I have no problem with creating a new template for bell articles and infact would encourage it. Most articles about bells don't have any infobox at all. But as I said, let us take that discussion to Talk:Sigismund Bell and find a good solution. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MSGJ, Frietjes, and Rehman: (and anyone else interested) let me explain the purpose of this nomination or at least why I felt the need to go this route. As I've been doing the conversions, I'm run up against a couple of editors who have objected completely to the conversion. I'm not talking about those who have very correctly pointed out that I broke pages. Nor am I talking about those who felt that some information was lost and needed to be re-added. Those editors have been very helpful. What I am talking about is those few editors who have basically said "no, I want a geobox on this article for a church instead of ((Infobox church))" (for example). So what I hope to achieve is a final decision that we are fully deprecating ((geobox)) and working towards converting each page to a better, more specific infobox. I agree with the points that you all stated. Specifically that there is no rush here. Converting the ~15,500 river articles is going to be a slow process and I agree that it likely won't be able to be fully automated by a bot. I'm not trying to rush anything here, just trying to get a documented consensus that we are working towards removing ((Geobox)). That way when I convert an article and an editor objects to switching templates, I have something I can point to and say "we as a community have made a decision". Again, I want to emphasize that I'm not trying to use this to force anything through. A number of editors have raised concerns that need to be addressed and those will absolutely continue to be addressed on a case by case basis. Does that make sense? Not sure I'm doing a great job explaining this so please let me know if you have any additional questions. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to explain. I have no further concerns. Good luck, and do please do feel free to ping me if you need any help. Thanks for taking the initiative. Rehman 01:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: great question. Couple of things to keep in mind. Right now, there are only 2 uses of the Geobox. There are about 15,000 river articles that use it and then there are 2 buildings that use it. NOTHING else. I have personally converted over 10,000 articles from Geobox and in none of those cases did I simply remove the Infobox. I always found that there was a better template. As for a generic template, There are a couple. ((Infobox building)) and ((Infobox landform)) both come to mind and there are others. I would challenge you to find an article that would use Geobox and doesn't have an existing infobox that could be used. That being said, IF you did find one, we (by that I mean I) would 100% want to address it. I wholeheartedly agree that simply removing the Geobox and not replacing it is NOT an option. I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Let me know if you have any more questions! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can envision the following uses for geobox: natural locations (use ((infobox landform)), if there's nothing better), settlements/legal jurisdictions/similar kinds of "locations" and areas (use ((infobox settlement))), designated natural areas (use ((infobox protected area))), individual things that are constructed (use ((infobox building))), individual miscellaneous little objects, and collections of the above. Let me propose a few examples: Prairie Grove Airlight Outdoor Telephone Booth (an individual object), Platform 9¾ (part of an individual thing that's constructed), Garden Spot Village, and Monash University, Clayton campus (both collections of natural areas and constructions). The first one has an infobox already because it's a historic site (((infobox NRHP))), the second doesn't need it because it's a section of a larger article, and the third and fourth could use the geobox. If we had articles on a non-historic-site phone booth and a rail station platform and wanted to add boxes, or we wanted to add boxes to Garden Spot or the Clayton campus, the geobox would be useful. What existing infoboxes could serve these purposes? I'm just asking for a really generic infobox (imagine ((infobox geographic location))) that could be used when a topical infobox doesn't exist or isn't known to the person adding an infobox. Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS, for a final example, The Old Crescent (no article) is a historic-designated portion of the Indiana University Bloomington campus: half a dozen buildings, a well house, pathways, and a woodlot. If ((infobox NRHP)) weren't applicable, what would be? It's not a settlement, it wouldn't warrant ((infobox university)) because it's not a separate institution (it's administratively the same as the surrounding buildings, and it doesn't have a separate budget or students or employees), the buildings have significantly different histories that shouldn't be combined in a single ((infobox building)) and we wouldn't do well with half a dozen infoboxes (and the woods shouldn't get one at all), and it's not protected more than the rest of the campus (so not ((infobox protected area))). Let me emphasize the isn't known bit — maybe a little searching would find me a generic "place" infobox, and we could promote such a box to make it better known, but if one doesn't exist, I wouldn't have a chance of finding a single infobox that would fit the Old Crescent. Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say a generic infobox should always exist, because unknown unknowns are unknown, and one cannot conceivably cover all cases since one cannot think of all cases, since some will be unknown. I suppose if a geocache point came to notability, it wouldn't fit any current infobox. (not a landform, not a structure, not a settlement/political-division). The generic infobox does not need much functionality, otherwise it would have a more specialized infobox. It could also be used as a starting point infobox for a skeleton template of a location article. -- 70.51.45.46 (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasoning above. If someone can find a generic infobox that meets what I'm asking for, I'll switch this to a delete. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend backup and Nyttend: so it seems like you are saying to keep because in the future we may have an article that will need this template? Am I understanding correct? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. We may have articles in the future (and quite possibly have articles now, e.g. Garden Spot Village) that need a generic template, and I'm concerned that this is the only such template. I'm fine with deletion as long as we have another generic template, but unless we have another one, I can't support deleting this one. Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL!!!! So To recap... There are 15,000 or so river pages which we have already agreed to deprecated and convert... Then there are 2 buildings which we are working on. And there is 's personal Settlement page... That is it for the ((Geobox)). But yes, This is all me on a which hunt! --06:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How old are you? This isn't a chat forum. And it's clear almost none of the votes to deprecate came from anyone who even writes river articles... This is ridiculous. Your last 'vote' to deprecate geoboxes took place in less than half a day, with 0 actual discussion about the merits, and a user closed it for being as pointless as this discussion. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 06:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@: not sure what my age has to do with anything... You aren't here discussing the merits of keeping the geobox though. That much is clear. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again... There are only 3 transclusions combined in architecture and cities. And the rivers have already agreed to be deprecated and there is a wonderful discussion ongoing to make that happen. So really not sure what you are complaining about. Feel free to notify all the wiki projects you want to. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because you and other template editors have removed all the rest. That doesn't change anything. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@: it does change everything... Because the template isn't needed... You are advocating keeping a template to be used on 3 pages and have yet to explain why other than that you don't like my method of nominating the template for discussion. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:38, 15 November 2018 (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).

Template:Georgia Statewide Executive Officials

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. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This template is redundant to ((Current Georgia statewide political officials)). – Muboshgu (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2018 (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).

Template:TOC001.5a and Template:TOC001.5b

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 -FASTILY 06:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

((TOC001.5a)) & ((TOC001.5b)) were superseded by ((TOC001)) ~2.5 years ago and remain unused.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  01:53, 11 November 2018 (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).