< June 25 June 27 >

June 26

Template:Infobox disputed islands

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 islands. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox disputed islands with Template:Infobox islands.
Very little differences in the two templates. Section can be added to ((Infobox islands)) to accommodate country claims and perhaps a banner at the top to denote it as disputed if deemed necessary. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I've changed my mind since 2013. No clearly-stated reason to keep them separate. The merger looks quite easy, since ((infobox islands)) supports multiple country sections (it did in 2013 too, but I possibly didn't realise it because it was buried in the documentation); it looks like it should just need a single additional parameter to add a "claimed by" heading in the appropriate place. This, that and the other (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@This, that and the other: See my comments below. Unless the same detail can be included in the merging, they should not be merged. The additional detail is important in remaining neutral in presenting the information. This is the exact same reason I (and others) used in opposing this merge in the past, and no one has ever bothered addressing it. Instead, people simply wait a few years and try to merge them again without addressing the concerns regarding the loss of information. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The 4th testcase shows how a "claimed by" heading can be added with the current parameters of ((Infobox disputed islands)). Please feel free to add additional test cases or take a look at Template:Infobox islands/sandbox and ping me if any errors come up. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan721: The 4th testcase loses detail for the claimants who aren't administering the islands, drops the coastline information, removes the "Disputed" part at the top of the infobox, and changes the color change at the top (the green). The color change and coastline information aren't vital (though the coastline information is important for a summary, I think), but the other items remove information important to include in the infobox summary if we want to remain neutral. Removing the detail puts an emphasis on the country that controls the islands and relegates to an afterthought the claims by anyone else (they're just a comma-separated list). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihonjoe: see now. ((Infobox islands/styles.css)) will have to be updated to add the green background to the top. All information is present now; however, I think many of the country subdivision information is overkill but that can be discussed another time. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2022 (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:Infobox farm

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox farm with Template:Infobox park.
The low use farm template is redundant to the park template. Apart for variations on image, address, dimension and mapping parameters, and |disestablished=, all of which can equally apply to both subjects, the only parameter unique to the farm template is |produces=. We don't need a whole new infobox for that. The advantages of merging such similar templates are described in my essay on infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 26 June 2022 (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:Infobox themed area

Propose merging Template:Infobox themed area with Template:Infobox amusement park.
((Infobox themed area)) is simply a wrapper of ((Infobox amusement park)) that does not add any information. Perhaps a redirect would be a better suit. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Moon cabinet infobox

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. plicit 14:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template used on Moon Jae-In's article. But instead of substitution on there, it should be outright deleted as the information on here is presented in list format as part of the article space of Cabinet of Moon Jae-in. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:13, 26 June 2022 (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:SZM color

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused color template. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Shenzhen Metro. Gonnym (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2022 (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:FC Desna Chernihiv sections

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, BC Chernihiv (basketball), Burevisnyk-ShVSM Chernihiv (volleyball) and Spartak ShVSM Chernihiv (women's football) have nothing to do with FC Desna Chernihiv (football), not legally affiliated with it and are not its sections or "active departments". These clubs are different legal entities with different owners. The template is essentially disinformation, its existence is not justified by anything. Dunadan Ranger (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2022 (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:Infobox magazine

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 23:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The line between newspapers and magazines is increasingly blurred, doubly so in their online forms. These infoboxes have many key parameters in common, and those that are not common to both (and are not simply synonyms) easily could be. The advantages of merging such similar templates are described in my essay on infobox consolidation. Obviously, whatever the new template is called, the unused name(s) should be kept as a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Our citation system differentiates between ((cite news)), ((cite magazine)), and ((cite journal)). It is useful to have consistency aligning cite templates with infoboxes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CS1. CS2 not so much, and anyway, these are all called periodicals on the backend, if not somewhere in the documentation. Izno (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ahead of merging the three, what would we name the merged template? Something along the lines of infobox publication, but that'd be too ambiguous. Vortex (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore the above, I can't read. Do you think periodicals would be easily identifiable? Vortex (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2022 (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).