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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cite doi family (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and now useless. Historically used in the documentation of defunct templates. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2020 (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 on 2020 April 1. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox_tram_network (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox_rail_network (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).

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox monster truck (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox automobile (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox monster truck with Template:Infobox automobile.
WP:INFOCOL. PPEMES (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Both templates seem appropriately scoped as designed, not seeing a strong rationale for merging. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge – My own rationale for merging the two is because monster truck is a type of automobile. --Soumyabrata ^{wash your hands} _{to protect from coronavirus} 09:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Monster trucks are a specialized piece of Motorsports equipment, not a general commercially available automobile. Plus monster truck articles are really about the racing team that operates them. Most monster truck teams have multiple trucks across their life, and in the case of more popular teams multiple trucks at once. It's incorrect to treat them as merely a motor vehicle. oknazevad (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These infoboxes should be kept separate. "automobile" refers to series production vehicles which are street-legal. Monster truck may have some ties to production vehicles but are essentially custom made individual vehicles for a single purpose. -- Ralf König (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom - the documentation for the automobile template clearly and prominently says (emboldening added) "This template is used in articles about motor vehicles including, but not necessarily limited to, cars, buses and trucks.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referring to production vehicles. If there's an actual appropriate merge target it's ((infobox racing car)), but that's still a poor fit. oknazevad (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The parameters for production vehicles and those for specialized purpose-built motorsport trucks are different enough that merging the infoboxes would do more harm than good. --Sable232 (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The extra monster truck fields will overburden use of the automobile temple and confuse editors not expecting them. Many automobile fields (eg production dates) don't apply for monster truck articles and lead to more confusion. Better to keep it as a speciality template.  Stepho  talk  03:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ralf, Stepho et al, Both are entirely different things and therefore should continue to be seperate, Another ridiculous nonsensical proposal from this nom. –Davey2010^Talk 19:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Monster truck fits perfectly into ((infobox racing car)) already (with far more detailed parameters); no point to this discussion here. --SteveCof00 (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2020 (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 merge to Template:Infobox organization. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox motorcycle club (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox organization (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox motorcycle club with Template:Infobox organization.
WP:INFOCOL. PPEMES (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge – My own rationale for merging the two is because motorcycle club is a type of organization. --Soumyabrata ^{wash your hands} _{to protect from coronavirus} 09:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• merge not specialized enough to keep apart. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as they do both have specialised variables. There are many things in the Motorcycle Club infobox that aren't in the organisation. By now honestly, this is a WP:SNOW. — Yours, Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^Talk∕_Contribs 09:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC) Changed to merge, I was looking at the wrong infobox. The nominator is right, they are effectively the same thing. — Yours, Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^Talk∕_Contribs 09:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge – A club is an organization. Spshu (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't care one way or another, but it bothers me that this notice is showing up on all pages that use Template:Infobox organization. - RobLa (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2020 (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 do not merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox treaty (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox document (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox treaty with Template:Infobox document.
WP:INFOCOL. PPEMES (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Both templates seem appropriately scoped as designed, not seeing a strong rationale for merging. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nikkimaria. --Soumyabrata ^{wash your hands} _{to protect from coronavirus} 09:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others. Absurd nomination. A treaty is not the actual piece of paper it's written on. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not merge' - incompatble. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not the same thing.--Auric talk 20:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Preposterous proposal! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. a very specialized use . DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:SNOW close, there is a clear consensus against this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow close indeed. Also, I don't see a rationale at all (except for an essay link), which makes it hard to evaluate what the reasons why the proposer came to this conclusion. L.tak (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Both designed for documents that are ratified. Spshu (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ——联合果君 (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2020 (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 merge to Template:Infobox law enforcement agency which effectively means substitute and delete the NSW box Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:New South Wales Police Force (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox law enforcement agency (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:New South Wales Police Force with Template:Infobox law enforcement agency.
WP:INFOCOL. PPEMES (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merging ((New South Wales Police Force)) into ((Infobox law enforcement agency)). Rehman 04:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Delete ((New South Wales Police Force)) as that template has ((Infobox law enforcement agency)) on it (template on template). Ckfasdf (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete the NSW template - it is a single-use wrapper of the other. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 26 March 2020 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox U.S. national banks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox company (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox U.S. national banks with Template:Infobox company.
WP:INFOCOL. Since Template:Infobox bank redirects to Template:Infobox company. PPEMES (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge – My own rationale for merging the two is because US national bank is a type of bank. --Soumyabrata ^{wash your hands} _{to protect from coronavirus} 09:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge — doesn't appear to merit a necessary unique template. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. While national and state banks are incorporated under different laws than regular corporation, this could covered via the type field. Also, there are financial company fields in co. Inbox. Spshu (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge—As Spshu said banks are companies. Additionally, I say we include "Template:Infobox bank" in the merger and add a charter numbers parameter for banks. Michealin (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Some banks may be companies, but companies are not all banks.--Auric talk 20:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - There are major parameters here that would be lost if merged. Charter numbers and dates are included in banking history and are unique to each bank (very useful when looking up references). I also agree that not all companies are banks as per ones owned by governments. I want to point out that Template:Infobox bank was never used as an Infobox, it was always a redirect created by Pigsonthewing [1]. If anything "Template:Infobox U.S. national banks" should be merged and redirected to "Template:Infobox bank" or vice/versa. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. andconsider unmerging the one for banks. It would make more sense to merge it with this template than with organization very specialized use . DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose INFOCOL is a subjective essay with no merit. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -联合果君 (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2020 (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 on 2020 April 1. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox_sporting_event_organization (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox_event (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).

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 on 2020 April 1. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox_property_development (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox_building (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).

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 do not merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox shopping mall (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox building (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox shopping mall with Template:Infobox building.
WP:INFOCOL. PPEMES (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The former is appropriately scoped and the latter is already huge. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nikkimaria. --Soumyabrata ^{wash your hands} _{to protect from coronavirus} 09:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A shopping mall is not usually a single building. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. They are fundamentally different. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not sensible to try to reduce template-space size by one file (why, at all?) at cost of introducing complexity for any reasonably-widely used template. --Doncram (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have never seen a shopping mall before as a single building. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2020 (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 Infobox KFC.

• Delete Template:Infobox KFC after substituting it in the main KFC article and removing it from the other pages. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Template:Infobox KFC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox company (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox KFC with Template:Infobox company.
Is it really meaningful to create a "template of a template" like that? PPEMES (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Of the seven articles listed on the template doc page, this template is only really seeing meaningful use on two of them: KFC and KFC in China. It's been removed from KFC in Japan and KFC Original Recipe already, and it seems rather out of place and unnecessary on History of KFC, KFC advertising, and List of countries with KFC franchises. Overall, it seems like more hassle than help. –IagoQnsi (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As with the McDonald's and Burger King ones below, any transclusions outside of the main article are incorrect and inappropriate use of an infobox, which is supposed to summarize key date from the article in which it appears. That is solely the main article. All other trans luscious should be removed as incorrect uses, and the main article substituted and deleted. oknazevad (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with the others I have removed the incorrect uses of this template. oknazevad (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded. Same goes with Template:Infobox McDonald's and Template:Infobox Burger King. --Diriector_Doc┝^{Talk
    Contribs}━━━┥ 21:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst to main page, remove any other usage and delete template. As has been pointed above, this is an incorrect use of an infobox. This should only appear on the main article of the company and not on any other page. --Gonnym (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst to main page, remove any other usage and delete template. Oknazevad nailed the problem; Gonnym nailed the solution. If the incorrect creation of the infobox isn't enough justification, one could cite WP:INFOCOL. – voidxor 00:25, 28 March 2020 (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 the McDonald's box.

• Delete Template:Infobox McDonald's after substituting it in the main McDonald's article and removing it from the other pages. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Template:Infobox McDonald's (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox company (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox McDonald's with Template:Infobox company.
Is it really meaningful to create a "template of a template" like that? PPEMES (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Incorrect use of a infobox. Only belongs on the main article. Other instances removed. Copy the relevant parts to the actual McDonald's article and delete even the redirect as unneeded. oknazevad (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded. Same goes with Template:Infobox KFC and Template:Infobox Burger King. --Diriector_Doc┝^{Talk
    Contribs}━━━┥ 21:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst to main page, remove any other usage and delete template. As has been pointed above, this is an incorrect use of an infobox. This should only appear on the main article of the company and not on any other page. --Gonnym (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst to main page, remove any other usage and delete template. Oknazevad nailed the problem; Gonnym nailed the solution. If the incorrect creation of the infobox isn't enough justification, one could cite WP:INFOCOL. – voidxor 00:25, 28 March 2020 (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 the Burger King box.

• Delete Template:Infobox Burger King after substituting it in the main Burger King article and removing it from the other pages. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Template:Infobox Burger King (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox company (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Burger King with Template:Infobox company.
Is it really meaningful to create a "template of a template" like that? PPEMES (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Miscreated WP:FORK. There should just one use of the regular company template in the article on Burger King. Not included in every sub-article on the subject. That is plainly an incorrect use of infoboxes. It shouldn't even be merged, actually, as there is not reason for this to be on any page except the main company article, and so zero reason for the redirect to exist. oknazevad (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have removed the incorrect uses of this template. It should only be on the main article now. oknazevad (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded. Same goes with Template:Infobox KFC and Template:Infobox McDonald's. --Diriector_Doc┝^{Talk
    Contribs}━━━┥ 21:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst to main page, remove any other usage and delete template. As has been pointed above, this is an incorrect use of an infobox. This should only appear on the main article of the company and not on any other page. --Gonnym (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst to main page, remove any other usage and delete template. Oknazevad nailed the problem; Gonnym nailed the solution. If the incorrect creation of the infobox isn't enough justification, one could cite WP:INFOCOL. – voidxor 00:25, 28 March 2020 (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 do not merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox record label (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox brand (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox record label with Template:Infobox brand.
WP:INFOCOL. PPEMES (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Both templates seem appropriately scoped as designed, not seeing a strong rationale for merging. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: small infoboxes that carry out their separate functions well enough. And how is the parameter for genre going to work inside the brand infobox anyway? Fwiw, the first infobox has not been tfm-tagged. – Uanfala (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I tagged this, and about a dozen other template-protected templates PPEMES nominated today, a few minutes ago. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per the two posts above. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 00:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No merge. Record labels have more in common with book or video game publishers than a generic brand for retail products. oknazevad (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Strictly speaking record labels (and other publishing imprints) are just brands, while some time do correspond to a division, company or subsidiary (thus use loosely as a synonym). The only needed fields to move over are distributor and genre. Spshu (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an extremely common specialized use. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "genre" would probably be confusing within the context of "brands" in general. I can't see much benefit of merging, and see no disadvantage of leaving them separate. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appropriate corporate information goes in the label infobox. Almost about record labels relates to the parameters of the brand infobox. ⌚️ (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2020 (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 on 2020 April 1. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox_tea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox_drink (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).

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 do not merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox theological work (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox theologian (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox theological work with Template:Infobox theologian.
WP:INFOCOL. PPEMES (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Which are you proposing would be the target? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox theologian. PPEMES (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't see the logic of this. It's like mergeing Infobox novel with Infobox author. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 23:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  

A theologian infobox needs the date of birth, family members etc. and the theological work infobox is completely different. A person has very different attributes to a document. --Mullafacation (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Rich says it best. Ones the person, ones the work. oknazevad (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not merge' - incompatible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. They are fundamentally incompatible -- authos and books have essentially no common fields. . DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The above comments appear to be misunderstanding the point of ((Infobox theological work)): it's not meant to be used for individual works (i.e. books, sermons, etc.), but for a given theologian's overall work, ans is only used inside ((Infobox theologian)). It can be merged, but I see no benefits to that as the current embedding arrangement is pretty neat. – Uanfala (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it is only used alongside ((Infobox theologian)), doesn't that just make it part of the other infobox? --Mullafacation (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2020 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox medical details (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox medical person (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox medical details with Template:Infobox medical person.
WP:INFOCOL. PPEMES (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Which are you proposing would be the target? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Given that ((Infobox medical person)) actually transcludes ((Infobox medical details)), it seems that these are essentially identical templates; the only difference is that the 'details' template can't be used as a standalone template (but they both can be used as a child template).

As for which template to merge into, I think that the 'details' template is where the real meat of the template is (and thus, where the more valuable page history is), but the 'person' template has the more logical name. So I think we should delete Template:Infobox medical person, then rename Template:Infobox medical details to "Infobox medical person". –IagoQnsi (talk) 04:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was how it was before. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes/embed. These nominations are ill-advised and should be closed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2020 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox engineering career (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox engineer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox engineering career with Template:Infobox engineer.
WP:INFOCOL. PPEMES (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the expected outcome. This is a wrapper template which adds extra fields to ((infobox person)). It was split precisely due to INFOCOL concerns. What do you want to happen here? If you don't understand this setup then I'd strongly advise a moratorium on similar TfDs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge – My own rationale for merging the two is because engineer is a type of engineering career. --Soumyabrata ^{wash your hands} _{to protect from coronavirus} 09:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes/embed. This distinction is deliberate. This should be closed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose although clearly the documentation on how this works could use improvement, and an example of how to use it. At present the documentation gives no examples and the header it shows strongly suggests (wrongly) that it should be used by embedding ((infobox person)) with a nested call ((Infobox engineering career)), when the whole point of ((Infobox engineer)) is to avoid having to do that in an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose.——联合果君 (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2020 (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 do not merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox YouTube personality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox presenter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox YouTube personality with Template:Infobox presenter.
Would this be considerable per WP:INFOCOL? And also trying to keep things as commercially neutral as possible? PPEMES (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support-These internet celebrities are a major, growing and ongoing phenomenon. The template certainly needs to be kept up to date. Many of them work cross platform so we should have a means to provide directions to their various channels. So in this case a youtube celebrity would be primary but they might also have an instagram, twitch, Facebook etc etc. I also see the great possibility of these being poached with our open editing policy. I will suggest that some editing protection be applied if these get changed and send a notification to someone of a developing problem. Trackinfo (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support BUT only changed to Oppose; if the parameters specific to YouTube are kept (channel and link to the channel, channel views, subscribers, date of stats update, genre, awards). Same goes for the Twitch infobox parameters being kept (channel + link, games played, followers, total views, genre). These are vital to the infoboxes for these individuals, in the same way that an NFL player's teams, awards, and stats are vital to be included in those infoboxes. Soulbust (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While I agree with Trackinfo and Soulbust, shouldn't the YouTube and Twitch infoboxes instead be merged into a new Template:Infobox internet personality since they are not "presenters" and share no custom parameters with Template:Infobox presenter? - Brojam (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Brojam, a new, more specific for internet personality sounds much better. Don't worry about its usage, there will be plenty for this specification, without branding. Trackinfo (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Agree completely with Brojam. Twitch and YouTube infoboxes have a lot of shared/similar parameters as they are very similar professions so it would be fairly reasonable to merge those two. Also, although YouTubers can generally be considered as presenters, a lot of actual television presenters don't primarily use social media for broadcasts and therefore this merge would result in unnecessary confusion. heyitsben!! ^talk 08:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others. --Soumyabrata ^{wash your hands} _{to protect from coronavirus} 09:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per common sense. A YouTube personality is not necessarily a presenter. Merging into a new one, infobox internet personality, makes ACTUAL sense. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would welcome a discussion on such a solution as well. I would support merge to infobox Internet personality or equivalent. PPEMES (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge into a new infobox for internet personalities, oppose merging to infobox presenter. buidhe 21:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per others. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I agree with the comments above. Merging the Twitch + YouTube infoboxes would be great (with the growth of TikTok, it would be smart to include an option for that too). Would still like an option to have the infobox appear as purple/white for those primarily Twitch personalities and red/white for those primarily YouTube personalities. Soulbust (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, agree, it would make much more sense to merge Twitch and Youtube rather than all three together. QueerFilmNerd^talk 20:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. a very specialized use . DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose/Keep - A YouTuber and a presenter just are not the same. Not all YouTubers go on to be presenters, so merging this could be awkward. – ᕼᗩᑎᗪOTO (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - agree with others that merging Youtuber/Twitch streamer might work, but presenter is subtly different and should remain separate. Perennialpoet (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These are all a bad idea, this is no different. Merging with Twitch / TikTok might work, as I expect there's real commonality there. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, since this infobox has support for Play buttons (Creator Awards), subscriber counts, channel names, etc. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Concur with everyone above (mainly Мандичка) - A YouTube personality is not necessarily a presenter and many are not therefore it would be nonsensical to merge, Given this nom has mady many nonsensical and pointless merge proposals I wonder if they should be topic banned from XFD as a whole. –Davey2010^Talk 10:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: Do you often insist on banning users you don't agree with, or is it just the casual way you go about winging WP:AGF? PPEMES (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one making ridiculous and nonsensical nominations. I'm entitled to point out disruption where I see fit, If you don't like people criticising you over your ridiculous TFDs then kindly don't make any TFD nominations. –Davey2010^Talk 19:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I would say a lapse in judgement on your part is to blame which merits constructive criticism. When citing essays you have to point out where x applies to each instance. In this instance you seem unsure if the essay even applies here, so why not take things you are unsure of to a discussion instead? When editors start to get annoyed then it would be wise to work things out with them rather than to dismiss it as not assuming good faith. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive criticism, sure. I don't mind that. I think the above discussion has been good. I have changed my mind, due to good arguments. I now hope a merged Internet personality infobox will be considered. Doesn't this make Wikipedia better? PPEMES (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting merging 2 infoboxes together that quite clearly should not be merged is not "making Wikipedia better and doing this a number of times with other infoboxes also doesn't make Wikipedia better, Without being condescending may I suggest you focus on articles that need improving ?. –Davey2010^Talk 21:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

WP:INFOCOL implies a number of merge nominations out there are still motivated. Not all of mine ended up attaining consensus. In this particular one above, it seems another result may materialise than I expected, but in a process that was needed and that I am happy to have initiated. One or two entries can be considered a mistake on my behalf in that process. I regret that. Now, I would be more impressed of your contributions if you helped do you part "in the arena" in this context - including if you did a couple of mistakes - rather than reducing your effort to doing nothing but providing quite unpolished and user-focused criticism of single entries. PPEMES (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to say the majority can be considered a mistake on your behalf,

I have no desire to spend my time suggesting merging infoboxes when my time could be much better spent on articles which incase you forgot is the sole reason why we're all here - for our readers.

"rather than reducing your effort to doing nothing but providing quite unpolished and user-focused criticism of single entries." - Perhaps you should look at my contribs more closely as it would appear I've done a lot more than "nothing" as you so put it..... –Davey2010^Talk 12:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose.——联合果君 (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - no justification provided Erik Humphrey (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2020 (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 do not merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Twitch streamer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox presenter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Twitch streamer with Template:Infobox presenter.
Would this be considerable per WP:INFOCOL? And also trying to keep things as commercially neutral as possible? PPEMES (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per points made at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Template:Infobox YouTube personality. - Brojam (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. as with the analogous proposal. . DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose.——联合果君 (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2020 (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 do not merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Lists of wars by date (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:War navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Lists of wars by date with Template:War navbox.
WP:INFOCOL. PPEMES (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. List of wars by date is for LISTS of wars. It connects a specific series of ARTICLES. The war navbox is for the war CATEGORIES. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I would consider withdrawing this nomination as the two are clearly different and having a tag on the pages this links to is distracting. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose.——联合果君 (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Zero overlap in content. And the rationale of the nomination is puzzling in its irrelevance. These are navboxes, why would an essay about infoboxes be justification in any fashion? oknazevad (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2020 (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).