Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 22

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 21 August 23 >

August 22 edit

Template:Fictional life form categories 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) 04:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fictional life form categories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I can understand having templates for articles but not for categories. This template simply reproduces the category hierarchy. It is pretty much redundant. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just... wow. Categories organise themselves: they don't need navboxes, especially insane trees like this. (Never mind that the content makes one lose the will to live. How can we possibly have so many articles on fictional birds that we need to categorise by species?) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What Chris said. But beyond that, this monstrosity of a template overwhelms the category itself, significantly reducing its usefulness, imo. Category trees certainly do not need their own navboxes. Resolute 00:47, 24 August 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:PowerPC 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) 16:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PowerPC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Infobox CPU, offers no advantages over the generic template. Keφr (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to take the following templates into consideration:

Two of them are also redundant and offer no significant advantages over their generic counterpart: {{Infobox GPU}}. {{IntelCPU}} might perhaps be kept, because it can include more information than the generic {{Infobox CPU}} and {{Infobox CPU architecture}}, but should probably be changed to use the generic {{infobox}} template. Keφr (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/Oppose Merge its improved visuals is what makes it have an advantage, will be used soon. Matthew Smith (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Colouring is such a trivial parameter that it should probably be handled in a generic template; however, I think using brand colours is gratuitous and breaks inter-article consistency. Keφr (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and revert to {{Infobox CPU}} Per nom. —Ruud 20:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argh. Return these to 2006, which is where they crawled from (HTML? Really?) and restore the vastly more elegant generic infobox. further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#User:Matthew Anthony Smith. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the rational for keeping seems to be based on a users visual preference for having lines round each field. I find this week compared to the consistancy with the thousands of other infobox templates.--Salix (talk): 13:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete consistency is good, especially in this case. the standard infobox is fine. Frietjes (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for consistency sake. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to all who recommend deletion: does that refer to {{PowerPC}} only or all the infoboxes listed? As I noted, I can see some reason not to completely replace {{IntelCPU}} with the generic {{Infobox CPU}}. Please add to your comment above. Keφr (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Which fields from {{IntelCPU}} are missing from {{Infobox CPU}}? We can probably add those there as well. I see a field for the GPU, but that would be relevant for AMD and ARM as well. —Ruud 03:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed two: cachee and cachex, these are specific to Intel processors. On closed inspection: transistors, transistors-nostep, cores, cores-nothread (corresponding to numcores in the generic template). The Intel template has some parameters, like fsb, qpi, dmi which correspond to multiple parameters in the generic template: *-slowest, *-fastest, -*-slow-unit and *-fast-unit; it also has cache where {{Infobox CPU}} has l1cache, l2cache, l3cache. This is quite a bit of a reorganisation, so the easiest thing would be probably to undo the edits introducing {{IntelCPU}}. Keφr (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them This is one of a number of templates introduced by the same user on any number of article that have no consensus for being featured in any article and destroy direct comparability between rival contemporary processors or indeed other comparisons that the user may wish to make. PowerPC does not exist in isolation any more than Intel processors do - they are always against the backdrop of what else is available. Templates like these serve to destroy that common ground. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    these templates don't destroy any type of information on any ground. Matthew Smith (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Needlessly forking templates destroys immediate comparability, especially when it is inevitable they will diverge over time. Is it not possible that a user may wish to compare an Intel processor with a Motorola one for example? No solid reason for forking the infoboxes has been presented, so why should we obstruct such obvious and natural uses? Crispmuncher (talk) 03:47, 29 August 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:Noconsensus title 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. Deleted per author request. No major contributors other than author. -DJSasso (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Noconsensus title (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless fork of {{movenotice}}, i.e. we have template for informing readers of move discussions, i.e. discussions for coming to a consensus over article titles JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep The template has just been created as part of an on-going discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#No consensus outcomes, and is meant to be placed on the page after a no-consensus RM close has been made, not while an ongoing RM discussion is taking place. Anyone is free to comment on it in the above discussion. If it is rejected there I'll put up for speedy delete myself. →Yaniv256 wind roads 17:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Last thing we need is yet another template people will leave at the tops of articles and never remove. I don't think no-consensus closures warrant this kind of nuclear measure. -DJSasso (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DJ Sasso. When an RM has been closed as "no consensus" it does not mean that there exists no consensus for the title, it means that there is no consensus for the move. Applying this tag therefore actually contradicts the close, which restores the status quo of a de facto consensus for the existing title. This tag therefore is not neutral, and instead supports one side of a debate over the other, with no inherent authority or consensus to do so; on the contrary, it actually usurps the de facto consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow delete. I tought it might be a good idea. What templete should I use to get it deleted? →Yaniv256 wind roads 18:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you created it, and no other editor has made any significant contributions to it, tag it with {{db-author}}. That should do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:08, 22 August 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:VampireProject23 Signature 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) 04:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VampireProject23 Signature (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Just a default signature for the user. I've notified said user. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 14:32, 22 August 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:Original European Cup/UEFA Champions League Clubs 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) 04:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Original European Cup/UEFA Champions League Clubs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no special edition. no other connection between clubs. Koppapa (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Still informative. →Yaniv256 wind roads 18:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wholly inappropriate claim-staking. There is nothing distinctive about having happened to participate in one particular season of a particular tournament which warrants a navbox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NENAN. Arbitrary and pointless clutter. There is no reason at all why 1955-56 is important enough to warrant a navbox but not 1963-64, 1988-89 or 2002-03. Resolute 16:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above reasons. If he had one of those for every European Cup season the Real Madrid article would have 50 templates attached! Calistemon (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - those clubs have no formal association. – PeeJay 09:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above.
      – HonorTheKing (talk) 10:37, 25 August 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 Bus 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 merge, under the condition that no information is lost, and that a redirect is kept. Although there were technically more votes opposing a merger, they were mostly based on the assumption that either (a) information would be lost or (b) that that a redirect from "infobox bus" would not be retained. As indicated, a section in the documentation of the merged template could be used to show the usage for bus articles (and other types of motor vehicles as well). As indicated, if there is a problem with inappropriate parameters being applied, then a "type" parameter can be added. These technical issues can be discussed on the template's talk page, or elsewhere, as part of the merger process. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Bus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox automobile (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Bus (301 transclusions) into Template:Infobox automobile (4446 transclusions).
Some bus articles are reportedly already using {{Infobox automobile}}. {{Infobox Truck}} already redirects there. A merger at something like {{Infobox vehicle}} or {{Infobox road vehicle}} will reduce both the template maintenance workload and the cognitive burden on editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree - Support merge. Would be nice if we adapted the look of the vehicle template to look more like the bus template though. It does have a better layout and style. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle. I think {{Infobox motor vehicle}} is a better title, so non-motorised bikes are excluded. I guess we need to look at the bus template's unique parameters:
    • Capacity — probably not required, the automobile infobox does not quote number of seating positions. Plus, this would vary on the fit-out of each individual bus right?
    • Operator(s) — not required, this would be almost equivalent to "notable owners" for cars
    • Doors — probably can be incorporated into the automobile infobox's "body style" parameter
    • Chassis — (body-on-frame or unibody construction) not required as car articles have been without this field since the beginning
    • Power output — not required as this depends on the engine fitted. For car articles, we do not quote power in the infobox
    • Options — not required (ambiguous)
OSX (talk • contributions) 12:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Oppose merge - It has nothing wrong with it - merging it with a totally different template not suited to public transport is illogical. I suggest keeping the template and altering that rather than merging it completely. Tom the Tomato (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although as noted by OSX, some adaptation would be needed:
    • Capacity — often part of a bus' model designation, and sometimes the only difference between otherwise identical models, so should be kept.
    • Doors — not sure of how to handle this, but generally some combination of front/center/rear (with or without an open platform).
    • Chassis — the body-on-frame/unibody distinction should be made somehow, as many coachbuilders supplied their product on different manufacturers' chassis.
    • Also needed (IMO) is a field for single/double deck, and type: transit, intercity, dual-purpose, mininbus, airport (the specialized over-width and/or -height terminal-to-tarmac transfer vehicles).
    • (Partial) list of bus articles using {{Infobox automobile}}: Classic (transit bus), Flxible Metro, Ford Transit bus, GM "old-look" transit bus, GM New Look bus.
      Useddenim (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Oppose I see significant loss of information as an inevitable outcome of this merge. Whoever created this template knew more about buses than I ever will, and I'd like to respect his or her work. →Yaniv256 wind roads 18:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where do you see that loss? Its creator, Nick, granted us a licence to "edit, use, and redistribute at will". That includes merging and deletion. This isn't about respect for their three-and-a-half-year-old work, it's about improving the encyclopedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think your project should look at cutting out many of the fields that can be better handled in the prose. WP:CARS has done this, cutting out many parameters to reduce the size of the infobox.
Capacity — If the only difference is capacity, the bus shouldn't have an infobox or a separate article right?
Doors — combine with "body_style", i.e. car articles state "4-door sedan", bus articles could use "Double-decker bus with front and centre doors"
Type — I can't see why this is necessary, you currently don't have this field. This can go in the prose.
Single/double deck — again, this can go with "body_style".
Now, there are some terminology differences between various types of motor vehicles, so maybe we should implement a special compulsory parameter called "type" that specifies the vehicle as an "automobile", "bus", "truck", "motorcycle", etc. Therefore, we can restrict certain parameters to certain vehicles types and rename the output heading to the most appropriate name for the vehicle type in question (i.e. "kerb weight" for cars, "wet/dry" weight for bikes). OSX (talk • contributions) 05:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not representing a project here. I don't think technical restrictions on parameters are needed; just provide different pro forma (blanks) for each type, on project pages. 09:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
  • Oppose merge, as I foresee various editors then applying bus or auto-specific fields in the wrong places. Instead, make the bus template so good that no one would think of using the Automobile template instead. Also, "motor vehicles" is rather vague and may cause confusion with motorcycles and trucks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we implement a compulsory parameter called "type" that specifies the vehicle as an "automobile", "bus", "truck", "motorcycle", etc; we can restrict certain parameters to certain vehicles types and rename the output heading to the most appropriate name for the vehicle type in question.
I think we can merge bus, motorcycle and electric vehicle all into one. Take a look at {{Infobox Motorcycle}}, here are the unique parameters:
  • parent_company — not required, for same reason why it was deleted from the automobiles equivalent
  • bore_stroke — applies to car engines as well, not in the automobile infobox
  • compression — applies to car engines as well, not in the automobile infobox
  • top_speed — applies to cars as well, not in the automobile infobox
  • power — applies to cars as well, not in the automobile infobox
  • torque — applies to cars as well, not in the automobile infobox
  • ignition — applies to cars as well, not in the automobile infobox
  • frame — equivalent to body-on-frame or unibody construction for cars, which is not in the automobile infobox. Can go in the text of the article.
  • suspension — applies to cars as well, not in the automobile infobox
  • brakes — applies to cars as well, not in the automobile infobox
  • tires — applies to cars as well, not in the automobile infobox
  • rake_trail — not entirely sure if this one is needed, I'd say no though
  • seat_height — not entirely sure if this one is needed
  • dry_weight — we will need to keep at least one of the weight parameters, hopefully this can be standardised with the automobile box
  • wet_weight — we will need to keep at least one of the weight parameters, hopefully this can be standardised with the automobile box
  • fuel_capacity — not required, for same reason why it was deleted from the automobiles equivalent
  • oil_capacity — applies to car engines as well, not in the automobile infobox
  • fuel_consumption — not required, for same reason why it was deleted from the automobiles equivalent
  • turning_radius — applies to car engines as well, not in the automobile infobox
OSX (talk • contributions) 05:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy's edits 09:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose a merge, I like "make the bus template so good that no one would think of using the Automobile template instead" and while I'm here may I publicly mourn the loss of "frame" "brakes" and "suspension" in the automobile template they were all very important for old cars. Eddaido (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • support merge, no strong reason why these can't be merged, and consistency is good. given the fact that some articles about buses are not using the bus box, there must be no strong reason why we need a separate bus box. Frietjes (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@OSX re weight: for trucks, tare weight and/or GVW is important (as well as wheelbase).
@Stephen Allcroft: can you be more specific about what "information has already been deleted from articles"?
@Typ932: OSX's suggestion for a compulsory type parameter should be sufficient for suppressing irrelevant information when it's not needed.
And in general, aren't almost all of the parameters optional, and therefore not an issue if not specified?
Useddenim (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support it makes sense to reduce complexity by reducing the number of templates. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the grounds that it makes absolutely no sense. I must be missing something there, but what is to be gained by a long and tiresome process of trying to merge infoboxes designed for different purposes and then carefully applying the new infobox to almost 5000 articles that use the current ones (this can be done by a bot, but it would take quite some time to program the bot and WikiProject members would still have to monitor the robot's work as it would probably run into a lot of glitches). It's not that either infobox is redundant or depreciated - 300 instances means the infobox has a clear purpose and is being applied. Why change something that works??? --PrinceGloria (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're not "different purposes". It makes little sense to have a specialist infoboxes for buses when they share the vast majority of their characteristics with other road vehicles. The actual merge is uncomplicated and shouldn't result in any significant impact to any of the transclusions (barring the removal of the style idiosyncracies in the current infobox). It's a process which has been completed hundreds of times with other infobox merges, so there shouldn't be any difficulties with it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Humans share the vast amount of our characteristics with lizards, too. This doesn't mean that the parameters for information on lizards would be adequate for humans or vice-versa. Numbers of axles, number of decks, number of articulated joints where applicable, this is information relevant for a bus but not for an automobile. Merging these templates seems to me about as bad an idea as merging all of Britain's major car manufacturers. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/ Oppose Merge The hiding of the bus info-boxes by the proposers of the merge was a particularly ill-mannered move, that is what I meant by removing information, as that was its effect for all casual users. I note that the five bus types that have used the Automobile template are all United States products built by mass-producers of cars, to very standardised specifications.
Further detail on why the box is right (by 300 -5 it seems for the compilers of the articles) most types of bus over the years have not been as standardised as the GM Old Look, most have been body on chassis, with the coachbuilder often being as notable as the chassis constructor in the finished vehicle. Likewise some vehicles, eg the AEC-Park Royal Routemaster or the Bristol Lodekka or the Guy Wulfrunian were largely specified by their main operators, not the manufacturers, which is one reason to include an operated by: field, another is that certain vehilces for instance the Leyland Olympic and the Worldmaster were primarily produced for an export market. Entrance type is an important parameter for buses, maybe not appreciated in the US, but in Europe and elsewhere access to local bus services for those with disabilities has been facilitated by low stepless entry on bus types. It is also worth noting on such vehicles as the Daimler Roadliner and the previously mentioned Lodekka and Wulfrunian as these had stepless entrances long before it became commonplace.
Power output is significant, because until relatively recently output was so low in relation to vehicle size; for instance Bristol used a 38bhp Gardner engine in its SC4LK, which sat 35 passengers, a rough idea of capacity is also good to have in the info-box because comparisons can easily be made across generations; for instance the 39-45 seats of the Leyland Tiger Cub (with box dimensions of 30ft by 8ft compared to the similar capacity of today's 12.5m by 2.5m low floor single-decks.
I must agree with the poster who forsees major information loss as the result of this imposition of tidy-mindedness, which seems to be predicated on the idea that if the automobile box works for what GMC did with buses in the USA it will work anywhere... Stephen Allcroft (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Stephen Allcroft[reply]
    • Are you maybe misunderstand what is meant by a merge, here? That's the only rationale I can think of for assuming that a close here will result in the removal of any information. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you've managed to succinctly explain why {{Infobox bus}} was originally entitled {{Infobox UK Bus}}. And even though the majority of "modern" (i.e. post-World War II) North American buses and coaches are very standardized, that was most certainly not the case in the early years of the industry (nor even today with some school buses which are offered as integrals, body-on-own-chassis, or on others'). Useddenim (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where have I or anyone else "hidden bus infoboxes"? You are welcome to provide an example of where a merged infobox wouldn't work for a bus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The infobox may not currently reflect it adequately, but cars and buses are not the same thing. Merging the two seems to me about as logical as proposing the merger of boats, tractors and aircraft infoboxes as well. We want people to create the best articles that they can, this seems like an administrative nicety that could discourage those who seek to add content. Mighty Antar (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Buses are certainly automobiles, and the distinction between "bus" and "other type of vehicle" is a spectrum rather than a binary choice. There are fields within the present bus infobox which are bus-specific, but that is easy to account for in the general template. I repeat that if this is done properly the impact to articles and editors will be minimal and largely positive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The claim that a merger "could discourage those who seek to add content" is without merit, and baseless. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The prototype looks good and there's no demonstrated need to maintain separate infoboxes. I don't see how any information would be lost. Mackensen (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Honestly this is the most idiotic merge proposal I have seen, or hear of. The only things automobiles and buses have in common are that they have an engine(if they are powered by a conventional fuel), have wheels, carry people, people drive them, and they drive on land. This is like merging the templates for motorcycles and bikes, or planes and helicopters. These things, just as buses and cars do not have much in common. Personally, I have never come across a bus article using an automobile infobox, and if I do, or if an editor does thy should correct it and use the bus info box. This merge makes me disappointed in Wikipedia, disappointed that this would even be proposed. These two infoboxes need to, and should stay separate. I think that we need to make the bus info box so good; and so unique that nobody would consider using infobox automobile; as others have said. Both infobox automobile, and infobox bus need improving, as many do. But if we merge them together, than we will compromise both of their integrity, and make them both worse than they are now. Coolboygcp (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you should choose your analogies more carefully. I just took a look at Boeing 737 and Bell 206 pages: they both use {{Infobox aircraft begin}} and {{Infobox aircraft type}}. Motorcycle models use {{Infobox motorcycle}}, but that is presumably because we don't seem to have articles on bicycle models, so there is no need for an infobox at all. You have not demonstrated how buses and other automobiles have so many differences that they cannot be handled in a generic template. Keφr (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge prototype

Right, I've put up a quick prototype of a merged box at Template:Infobox bus/testcases. Not perfect because of the big TfD notice in the way, but it shows that a merge will have minimal effect on transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work Chris, but you'll never convince the naysayers and flat-earthers. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "naysayers and flat-earthers" don't need to be convinced if the arguments they're making have been rebutted. Even if this isn't closed with consensus for a merge today, now that the work is done it'll be far harder for people to claim that it would be difficult for reasons that have plainly been overcome. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you create testcases for uses that currently invoke {{infobox automobile}}? Keφr (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And so the tidy-minded make the job of those trying to write good articles that little bit harder... Before if I wanted an infobox about buses I could have one, now I can't.Stephen Allcroft (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Stephen Allcroft[reply]

Furthermore any move to close the Buses infobox written in UK english, gives further dominance to US english which is not appropriate for non- US subjects, especially when US buses are so different from those elsewhere. I don't use the word automobile (often) and I do not think of a bus as a car, the two things were different in the days of horse-haulage and are still different, this is not nay-saying for the sake of it, but an attempt to resist added complication for writers and editors of articles and US cultural colonialism in the form of tidy-mindedness that says if the category (automobile) works with the GMC old-look then it works for every bus. None of the proposers of this change have shown any reason why it should be done or how it would make anybody's life easier. All they have shown is that it looks tidier from their own subjective point of view. Stephen Allcroft (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Stephen Allcroft[reply]

I'm a Brit; as is Chris Cunningham, so you accusations of "US cultural colonialism" are way off beam (and would probably be even if we were not). Please read WP:AGF. And, yes, we have shown reason why the infoboxes should be merged; and would make people's lives easier. The onus is now on you to show otherwise, and demonstrate your claims of "added complication" and maling things "little bit harder", not sling accusations of cultural colonialism. I'm also curious as to the basis of your insinuation that we're not "trying to write good articles". Finally, I'm still waiting or you to substantiate your accusations of infoboxes being hidden. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen, your straw man must be very tattered by now, given the beating you've been giving it. But seriously, a properly-written Template:Infobox bus/doc should clearly indicate which fields are appropriate for what vehicles, removing any confusion. Useddenim (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if I was to write an article on say the Quest 80 VM and wanted to bring up an information box template referring to buses, I would find I could not and got something relating to 'automobiles' I would not be discouraged? As to the rest, sorry for attacking your good faith, but your perspective seems to be that of a systems administrator wanting to simplify the classes of everthing to an extent that where there is a real distinction there is no longer a difference, I can see for instance that from the POV of someone concerned with reducing the classes of objects infobox apples and and infobox oranges would have so much overlap they could be considered suitable for merger, however the author of a number of articles on cider would be disgruntled and discouraged when finding infoxbox apples had been replaced by infobox oranges, please accept my good faith in this as well and try to look at it from the ergonomics of someone writing articles Stephen Allcroft (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Stephen Allcroft[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "bring up an information box", but if or when the merge goes ahead, then {{Infobox bus}} will redirect to {{Infobox motor vehicle}}, so the latter will be found by anyone searching for the former. I'm not doubting your good faith, but the argument that you're making doesn't hold water. And I write plenty of articles, and apply infoboxes to them, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger The bus infobox was recently updated from a region-specific template (UK bus) to a template with wider visibility. For the most part, it does not need that much in the way of updating, in terms of where it is used now. If a merger were to be undertaken, the irrelevant parameters for bus/automobile article infoboxes would be a nightmare. The articles for both would be made worse off in the long run. If anything, this underscores how the English version of the automobile infobox needs updating in comparison to its counterparts elsewhere.
  • Oppose' - Outside of having engines, (at least) four wheels and being able to carry people, buses and passenger automobiles are very different, with far different structures, and different uses. In many ways, buses have far more in common with trains than cars. As such, I feel there is enough differing parameters between the templates as to not render them redundant, if any template trancluded over three hundred times can be so considered.
    I also think the desire to have fewer, but more comprehensive infobox templates is a mistake. They become longer, more difficult to manage and therefore edit for less experienced users. I think a greater number of more focused infobox templates is a better method. oknazevad (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been a little busy of late, so apologies if I'm a little behind the times, but it would have been nice to have been informed about this discussion. There was a reason why I created the template, and it was because none of the existing templates was at all well suited to British buses, where it's entirely possible to find the same body on different chassis (from the same or different manufacturers), and it's similarly possible to find the same chassis under different bodies (again, from the same or different manufacturers). If we look at the Alexander Dennis family of buses, the Trident chassis is found under the Alexander ALX400 body, the Alexander Enviro 400 body, the Wright Eclipse body, Plaxton President and East Lancs bodywork. The Alexander ALX400 and Enviro 400 bodies can however be found on not only their own Trident chassis, but on Volvo chassis and Scania chassis. Further complicating things is the presence of different engine options on the Trident chassis (Cummins or MAN) and the presence of different fuel and hybrid options. That's just the basic running gear and body, before individual operators customise the number and type of doors fitted and add their own options or take into account things like guided busway operations. I don't really see how or indeed why you would want to fold fields for all those options into the existing automobile template. Nick (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the process of completing the prototype merge, it became obvious that there were only ever a handful of bus-specific attributes in the bus infobox anyway. Assertions of exceptionalism from the technical perspective of template implementation have been overblown to say the least. There are plenty of possible technical improvements to be discussed here, but based on what has actually been deployed on articles over the years so far not one of them presents the slightest barrier to adoption of a merged template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could we deal this soon, it affects so many articles and makes articles looking very nasty, so we need to solve this soon... -->Typ932 T·C 17:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't really get why this merge is desired — Infobox bus is about as close as one gets to zero-maintenance, having been virtually untouched for three and a half years apart from a couple of renamings and the conversion of its width parameter from ems to pixels. Having said that, though, I don't see any obvious downside to the merge from an article editor's point of view.
When I first started reading early comments, like some others I was concerned about loss of information and the possibility of parameters being gratuitously thrown away, which I would certainly oppose; however, subsequent discussion and Chris's link to the test cases has reassured me that this needn't be a problem.
Quackdave (talk) 12:56, 1 September 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:Original UEFA Cup/UEFA Europa League Clubs 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) 03:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Original UEFA Cup/UEFA Europa League Clubs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

nothing special about that edition. no other connection between those clubs. Koppapa (talk) 05:50, 22 August 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_August_22&oldid=1142562955"