Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 November 14

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 13 November 15 >

November 14 edit

Template:ISO 639 name al edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ISO 639 name al (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

al is not a valid ISO 639 code, the code for Albanian is sq. Frietjes (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Mediacorp Channel 8 guides edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2008 Mediacorp Channel 8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2009 Mediacorp Channel 8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2010 Mediacorp Channel 8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2011 Mediacorp Channel 8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2012 Mediacorp Channel 8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2013 Mediacorp Channel 8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY or channel guide. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A previous discussion, not exactly on topic, at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_30#Template:2011_Mediacorp_Channel_8, where that template was nominated for deletion while seriously incomplete, with a "no consensus" result. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Textbook WP:NOTTVGUIDE in template form, and riddled with redlinks to boot. No reason for this to exist. Nate • (chatter) 03:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Multiples edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Multiples (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:×s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

redundant to the information already presented in {{infobox number}}, and the presentation of this template is somewhat cryptic and hard to parse. Frietjes (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's too unintuitive, and much less clear than simply writing out its divisors. ypnypn (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox LACMTA station edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete after replacement. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox LACMTA station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox station}}. Only 126 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - While the LACMTA box is used in quite a number of articles, there's really no reason the standard Infobox can't be used. It seems like someone was under the impression it was common practice to have a custom infobox for each system/municipality when this was created. It just increases maintenance work. Lexlex (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a copy of Infobox station, with a few minor custom touches. For example, the {{{address}}} is simply broken into city, neighborhood and street address. That's what I call my address. All the entrances, levels and description detail would be better dealt with in a nice paragraph of prose. An infobox should not be overstuffed with details. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: What's wrong with a few extra details in an infobox? This is used on ~100 different stations. Not seeing the need for a merger here, sorry pbp 22:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Secondarywaltz. There's no reason for this fork to exist, and it would be easy to merge these uses back into the main template. Mackensen (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Baseball team infoboxes edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep / No consensus. It seems clear that discussion on merging these templates should have been held elsewhere instead of jumping straight to TFD. Despite this process being named "Templates for discussion", it's not particularly conducive to the type of discussion that is actually needed for a complex merge like this one. Anomie⚔ 12:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note meta discussion, below.
Template:Infobox MiLB edit
Template:Infobox MiLB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Minor League Baseball (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox baseball team}}. Only 218 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)You know what might have been more effective than nominating a bunch of templates for deletion. Ones that have more transclusions than the one you want to use instead. Perhaps talking to the relevant wikiproject and coming up with a design that does incorporate all the elements into a couple better designed infoboxes. Single does not always mean better. -DJSasso (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's nominated for deletion? This is "Templates for discussion". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that is what the page is called, but everyone knows it really stands for Templates for deletion even if not officially called that. Discussion on how to better deal with templates rarely happens here because of the general 7 day time limit imposed on discussions here. -DJSasso (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"everyone knows..." Speak for yourself. No "7 day time limit" is imposed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who has been around as long as you, you sure haven't looked at how TfD is usually closed at 7 days unless the close is complicated. -DJSasso (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for confirming that no 7 day time limit is imposed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because the odd one goes over 7 days, doesn't mean there isn't one. -DJSasso (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
given that we currently have everything after October 31 still open, seems like it's more than "the odd one". Frietjes (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is a highly used template which would not benefit from being merged into another. -DJSasso (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being "highly used" is not, in itself, a reason to keep a template which can otherwise be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • And neither is only stating "only 218 transclusions" an argument that it needs a merge. You fail to show why a largely used template needs to be merged. You haven't done any homework. You haven't shown how it could be merged, what is the same, what is different. Basically you just dumped a number of templates here with an IDONTLIKEIT attitude. If you don't show there is a problem or a solution then yes, commenting that it is widely used is a valid observation. -DJSasso (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't say that it wasn't a valid observation; I pointed out that it's not a reason to keep a template which can otherwise be merged My "only 218 transclusions" comment is point of fact; not an argument. My argument is that the template is redundant to the more generic one; neither you nor anyone else have put forward a counter argument. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DJSasso. AutomaticStrikeout 17:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. it's not clear how the merger would go for this one, since no prototype merged template was presented. Frietjes (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until a proper discussion can be had at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball rather than rush through it here. -Dewelar (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DJSasso. It's Atreem (From the planet Venus) 22:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this template is retained it should have a more meaningful name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think a rename would be controversial so I have changed the acronym to its full name. -DJSasso (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: "Only" 218 uses? That seems like more than enough in my book pbp 16:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominator does not appear to understand topic (baseball's organizational structure and the vast distinctions between different types of teams). Were an American to attempt this form of cramdown on a European topic, s/he would be rightly pilloried. VT hawkeyetalk to me 21:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question is not my understanding of baseball, much less my nationality (nasty - and ignorant - little ad hominem, that), nor even one of "the vast [sic] distinctions between different types of teams", but whether or not we need separate templates for them. A question which you oddly fail to address. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox NPB team edit
Template:Infobox NPB team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox baseball team}}. Just 11 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox college baseball team edit
Template:Infobox college baseball team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox baseball team}}. Only 129 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is an easy "keep" because the template is not "redundant," and this TfD betrays the nominator's lack of experience in dealing with the differences between professional and college baseball. There are numerous differences in the terminology of parameter field names between the two levels of the sport, and there are simply no equivalents for others. For example, (1) pro teams are not affiliated with a university or college, (2) the head coach of a pro team is called a "manager" not a coach, (3) college teams are affiliated with conferences not leagues and divisions, (4) pro teams do not have conference championships or conference tournaments, and (5) pro teams do not participate in the NCAA playoffs or College World Series. This is yet another example of an editor nominating a whole class of related infoboxes without carefully examining the differences between them nor considering the specific purposes of each, and then waiting for more informed editors to comment here at TfD. It does no one any good to consolidate templates if the final merged product becomes so generic and so large, with a majority of the parameter options that do not apply to entire subclasses of articles in which it will be used. Sometimes, shorter with fewer options tailored to the specific use is the best solution. In this instance, forcing college baseball articles to use a generic baseball team infobox will inevitably lead to confusion and misuse of professional parameters in college infoboxes, and will ultimately require more maintenance of the articles by experienced editors whose time will be stretched even further. Bottom line: No, we should not merge the college baseball infobox into the general professional baseball infobox. If you want to have an intelligent discussion about merging infobox templates, we could talk about how to create a consolidated infobox template for most college sports, or at least a consolidated series of infoboxes with greater similarity in layout and design and using the same base code. But that would require advance planning and some knowledge of the sports as well as experience in the templates' use and practical applications. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "If you want to have an intelligent discussion about merging infobox templates" - Yes; that's why they're listed on "Templates for discussion". Your claim that merging would "inevitably lead to confusion and misuse of professional parameters in college infoboxes, and will ultimately require more maintenance of the articles by experienced editors" is bogus; a |type= parameter could prevent the display of irrelevant parameters, and switch labels as required. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Generally a change the size you are looking for would be best discussed on the related wikiproject talk page before going to the drastic step of putting it on Tfd where there is a time limit gun to everyone's head. Where more often than not a good discussion can't be had because of how Tfd is setup where things are more keep or delete based instead of general discussion on how to better design a template. -DJSasso (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're welcome to propose replacing the TfD process, but this isn't an effective place to do so, and it's what we have, right now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not recommending replacing the TfD process. I am recommending you use the common courtesy approach that is usually suggested that you take these sorts of mass nominations to the relevant wikiproject before coming here. You didn't, as usual you chose the most drama prone route. -DJSasso (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Address that to the people making the drama; not me. All people who have watch-listed the template have had a courtesy notification. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are the one making the drama. By bringing it here first instead of to the people who use these templates. Instead of having set up an environment where a civil productive discussion could be had. You have attempted to fire bomb all the articles in one big shot. Clearly hoping people won't be able to deal with all of the infoboxes at the same time in the 7 days alotted. -DJSasso (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Your failure to AGF has caused you to post a tissue of lies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Unfortunately you used up AGF a long time ago with the tactics you often use. -DJSasso (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I do have to agree with Djsasso and Dirtlawyer1 here. This discussion is merely part of a process for deletion. Without any prior discussion to determine the feasibility of deletion to begin with, you have already started the deletion process. Please have a preliminary discussion in templates like these to gauge consensus before you take the dramatic route and come here again. Brian Reading (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dirtlawyer sums this up a lot better than I could have. There comes a point where templates get so large and so generic as to no longer be useful and actually make the situation worse. I think these nominations are a case of that. -DJSasso (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "only" 129 transclusions? Resolute 14:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Resolute, the number of template transclusions is largely rrelevant; there are currently 129 college baseball team articles, and that number has gradually expanded over the past three years. The larger point to be discussed is the inappropriateness of most of the professional baseball parameters for a college baseball team; despite sharing the sport of baseball, the two subclasses do not share university, conference and league affiliations, playoff and championship structures and terminology, governing bodies, or coaching terminology. As I said above, sometimes a template that is shorter and more specifically tailored to a particular class of articles is simply more efficient. This is one of those cases. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my way, I was actually agreeing with you. I can understand the "It is redundant to x, and has only a handful of transclusions" argument, since that implies the only real difference is a parameter or two. But when a template has over 100, that is a pretty big sign that said argument fails. And I agree with you that we are better off with a handful of such templates, similar as they may be overall, than one giant, omnibus template that is confusing as hell. I would say the law of diminishing returns becomes a factor here. Resolute 18:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Redundancy has nothing to do with quantities; it is to do with the similar properties of templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ya think? That is why I found the "only 129 transclusions" comment silly - it has nothing to do with the premise of your argument. On a relative basis, this is a widely used template. And while it certainly has similarities to the generic baseball infobox, I think a better argument than "it's redundant" needs to be presented. Can the unique parameters of all of these infoboxes be merged without dramatically bloating them or increasing complexity? If yes, then you have a case for merging. If no, then perhaps we should consider maintaining two or three infoboxes, even if they are partially redundant. Resolute 20:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • That is what I was hoping we could discuss; but it appears that some members of a project that "jealously guards its [sic] templates" won't permit this. My "only 129 transclusions" comment is point of fact; not an argument. As I note in the "meta" discussion below, two or three infoboxes - or indeed one - may be optimal. But maintaining nine is not appropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per the various differences between professional and college baseball, as cited by Dirtlawyer1. Kithira (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per Dirtlawyer1's arguments. College and professional are too different in structure and terminology. Brian Reading (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not redundant. AutomaticStrikeout 17:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, if you want to demonstrate a merger, refactor it as a frontend first, but we can discuss that on the talk page. Frietjes (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query. Frietjes, it sounds like you are proposing a process by which a mock-up of the proposed merged template is created for review, but several of the terms used by you in context above are Greek to me. Is that what you are saying? If so, how do we go about doing that within the TfD framework? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no requirement to make such a mockup, before a strategic decision is made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Andy, I know you're trying to be helpful, and I know that TfD/merge mock-ups are not required, but I would grateful if you would permit the person to whom the query was directed answer it. Frietjes and I have pending questions regarding the possible merge of an unrelated template, and I wanted to understand if there were any such procedures available within the TfD process. That having been said, mock-ups do permit editors to make better informed decision, instead of buying a "strategic" pig in a poke (if you will pardon the expression, Mr POTW). Because this particular TfD/merge is clearly not going anywhere, creating a mock-up would not be a productive use of anyone's time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was replying to Frietjes, not you. That said, this is a shared discussion. If you want a private chat, use some other forum. And please stop breaking the list formatting used in this discussion, by replacing asterisks with colons; you're damaging its accessibility, and the nesting of replies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until a proper discussion can be had at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball rather than rush through it here. -Dewelar (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my above. VT hawkeyetalk to me 21:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox Independent baseball team edit
Template:Infobox Independent baseball team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox baseball team}}. Only 218 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't taken the time to compare parameters or how they are used to see if the template really is redundant, but I note {{Infobox baseball team}} has only 181 transclusions. This and some of the others below seem to have pretty widespread use, comparatively. Billcasey905 (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The most-used template isn't necessarily the best (nor worst), or even best-named, one. "Independent baseball teams" is a subset of "baseball teams". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is a highly used template which would not benefit from being merged into another. -DJSasso (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this template is particularly suited for independent teams. It is used by nearly all current independent teams. --MJHankel (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. AutomaticStrikeout 17:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Brian Reading (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, if you want to demonstrate a merger, refactor it as a frontend first. Frietjes (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, there is no requirement to make such a mockup, before a strategic decision is made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course you aren't required to. But a reasonable and courteous person would do so since A> its helpful to others B> its respectful to others C> visual samples often help people see what you are trying to do. Otherwise you end up with the situation that is likely to occur here (and somewhat already is) where your proposal gets shot down in a burst of flames. Not sure why you are so against working with people to figure things out instead of always taking it to last resort method such as Tfd. -DJSasso (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Flames" being the operative word. Since TfD isn't a "last resort method", and your assertions, such as that I am "against working with people...", patently false, your post is inappropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Any XfD is a last resort method. Most people would first suggest it on the affected talk pages and see if it gets any traction there. If it does then they would make the merge, if it didn't and the felt it needed a wider audience they would then go to the related WikiProjects and post a pointer to the discussion on the talk page of the template. And if it still needed a wider audience then they come here. -DJSasso (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until a proper discussion can be had at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball rather than rush through it here. -Dewelar (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my above. VT hawkeyetalk to me 21:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox Defunct Independent Baseball edit
Template:Infobox Defunct Independent Baseball (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox baseball team}}. Just six transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it should be merged anywhere it should be merged to {{Infobox Independent baseball team}} -DJSasso (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's also nominated here; please see also the "meta" discussion, below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox Taiwan baseball team edit
Template:Infobox Taiwan baseball team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox baseball team}}. Just two transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge since two transclusions doesn't warrant a separate box. -DJSasso (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Djsasso's argument. Brian Reading (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox Defunct MiLB edit
Template:Infobox Defunct MiLB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Defunct Minor League Baseball (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox baseball team}}; Only 156 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it should be merged anywhere it should be merged into {{Infobox MiLB}}. -DJSasso (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps; though I've also nominated that template, in order to facilitate a more thorough discussion. Note "meta" section, below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meta discussion edit

It may be that we should have more than one baseball team infobox; but it's unlikely that we need the nine that we currently have (the ninth being {{Infobox collegiate baseball team}}, nominated on 4 November; 53 transclusions). What's the optimal way to arrange them? What are the key differences, if any? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I did not even know that "Infobox collegiate baseball team" existed until Djsasso pointed out that there was a pending TfD regarding it. Infobox collegiate baseball team should be merged into Infobox college baseball team per my comments in that TfD discussion, but with the caveat that baseball and college sports editors should be given sufficient time to perform the manual edits necessary to transition to Infobox college baseball team before the Infobox collegiate baseball team template is deleted. This may also require some minor changes to the surviving template. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the way such matters are usually handled. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually once we get to the stage of Tfd things are deleted quite quickly...merges like you are clearly suggesting are usually handled on the talk pages of the affected templates. -DJSasso (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, that's not true. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place for this type of broad discussion. I have voted Keep on all of these so that a proper discussion can be had without the pressure of an XfD. -Dewelar (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"So that a discussion can be had without the pressure of a discussion". Riiight. I trust that the closing admin will discount such fatuous and baseless !votes (note: not votes). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Mabbett, you do yourself no favors with this statement. My previous sentiment stands, despite (indeed, perhaps strengthened by) your willful misreading of it. -Dewelar (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, you may want to accept the likelihood that you are not going to get instant results with this en masse TfD. Frankly, that was predictable, because active sports wikiprojects jealously guard their infoboxes and other templates. You know this already, because you've dealt with it before. Change comes slowly, but most editors recognize a better idea when it's presented to them. AGF, Andy. On the bright side, I do expect that the "collegiate baseball" infobox will be merged into the "college baseball" infobox in the next week or so, and it's quite likely that several of the other lesser-used baseball team infoboxes will be likewise merged or replaced in relatively short order. However, combining templates that were designed for foreign teams, American teams, and minor league teams will probably take some additional thought and advance planning, and I cannot predict the outcome. That's okay, regardless of what happens. We're not going to break the wiki if we have one more or one fewer template. Give it some time, let editors actually review the templates, and let's lower the level of rhetoric. It will all turn out right in the end. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. If it were a matter of one or two templates to be reviewed, that would be one thing, but to throw up all nine of these at once is just a recipe for chaos. Things may turn out the way Mr. Mabbett desires in the end, but it will take time, thought, and expertise in the subject to decide the best way to proceed. This...willy-nilliness is not the way. -Dewelar (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't 9 templates appropriate for baseball? Anyway, Andy is correct as to the proper venue for discussing merges. It's rare that template merges are attempted without a TfD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merging of templates discussions happen all the time on WikiProject talk pages. I know I have been involved in a few. Usually the situation is solved long before it ever needs to come here. The only time I have seen them come here for infoboxes is when Andy is the driving force behind it. (not to say that others haven't brought them here). -DJSasso (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Buddhism-Horizontal edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Buddhism-Horizontal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

we have Template:Buddhism topics, and {{Buddhism}}, this doesnt provide any useful navigational help that i can discern. While i feel with the template creator and editors, i also can see this is not skillful means to aid readers. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the template in question is only a smaller, less helpful version of Buddhism topics template. There is really no use for it, except that is generalizes the search option; I wouldn't argue against a deletion. -Ano-User (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Provided very little info, "Buddhism topics" is much better. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment {{Buddhism topics}} is overloaded, that's an index or outline article in the guise of a template. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to {{Buddhism topics}} as a "|small=yes" activated version, make that default with the current version as a "large=yes" activated one, and in the meanwhile, try to trim most of Buddhism topics out, until it becomes more reasonably sized (possibly by dividing it into multiple footer templates) so that we won't need a large/small version, since the final split apart or pruned version of the footer would then be reasonably sized. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as redundant. Frietjes (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_14&oldid=1136430436"