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 DeleteBgwhite (talk) 07:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This NavBox only has one unique link besides the topic article and two transclusions. Offers no further aid to navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree. Not enough links to be useful. -- P 1 9 9✉ 18:59, 2 January 2015 (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.
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 as unused and unnecessary. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I seriously question whether we should be linking to databaseBasketball.com at all. This website -- together with its sister websites databaseFootball.com and databaseOlympics.com -- has not been updated or maintained since 2011 and has fallen into disuse. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dirtlawyer1: The intent of my nomination was to delete (might have been unclear since I forgot this was "Templates for discussion"—Bagumba (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an unnecessary template. And, for the reasons I stated above, I question whether we should be linking to databaseBasketball.com at all, with or without the use of this template. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2015 (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.
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 as not sufficiently useful as a navigation tool. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With only one album and an EP, navigation to and from each of the three articles is simple and straightforward even without the navbox. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree. Not enough links to be useful. -- P 1 9 9✉ 19:00, 2 January 2015 (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.
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 as unused Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Funny sort of template. Was used as part of WP:GOLF in the past but has ceased to have a purpose. The author has been inactive since 2011. Nigej (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2014 (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.
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 with no objection to userfication while the relevant articles are being developed Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the creator of the template I intend to create the relevant articles when I get around to it, hopefully early next year. I had already created one of the articles on a local wiki but suffered data loss due to a hard disc drive failure. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete, can be trivially recreated once someone gets around to creating the articles. Frietjes (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2015 (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.
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 no consensus. A resolution is contingent on the will of participants to contribute constructively. More to the point, there is disagreement about whether several parameters should be discarded, rather than incorporated into {{Infobox automobile}}. Modularisation beckons as a compromise. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant to {{Infobox automobile}} (which covers buses and trucks also). Only 37 transclusions. Previous TfD closed as "no consensus... but feel free to relist this at a later date if you still feel it should be deleted".(@Plastikspork: Did you get around to merging parameters, as mentioned then?) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One infobox can't be redundant to another if the other doesn't perform the same function. As was explained at the previous TfD, there were issues with Infobox automobile that prevented it replacing Infobox tractor. If these haven't been addressed, then the template cannot be deleted. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remind me who said "expand and then merge... For the most part this infobox appears to be redundant to Infobox automobile" in that previous discussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Selective quoting is never a good thing because it comes back to bite you in the arse. I actually said Keep, expand and then merge. Note "keep", which was a change from "Redirect". I followed up the small part that you quoted with but Caterpillar D9 demonstrates that's only the case because there are tractor specific fields that are missing from the infobox. These fields need to be identified and then incorporated into Infobox automobile before this template can be deleted. A merge discussion on the template talk pages (something the nominator seems to avoid at all costs - see the Template:Infobox garden discussion) is more appropriate, since changes to Infobox automobile may affect 5,000 articles. So, keep this template, expand Infobox automobile to include missing fields and then merge the two. Has Infobox automobile been expanded? If not then we have to keep. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you did. There then followed a discussion, referred to in the nomination, above. Did you read either? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, you are playing a wordgame. AussieL opened with the note that "One infobox can't be redundant to another if the other doesn't perform the same function.", to which you have not replied in any way. Instead you diverted into selective quoting (as is pointed out). I concur with the statement: not the same so not redundant. -DePiep (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Caterpillar D9 was an article that proved problematic. Will that now work? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now or modularize — I'd support a merge, preferrably to a name like "Infobox motor vehicle," but the name doesn't matter so much to me, anymore. It could be called "n65yyh" if that is easier for editors to use. still doesn't matter much. The only things keeping me from !voting to merge or delete at this time are: I'm not sure of the state of the template; is it under some kind of editing process? I don't know it is redundant, but would look at a sample replacement of the Caterpillar D9 usage. This isn't a merge discussion. —PC-XT+ 09:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC) also, is the automobile template equipped to work with modules, as mentioned in the previous discussion? If so, I'd support that. I tried to interest outside editors in expanding tractor articles, but they seem to think that this community is either not interested or too divided about such subjects, and so they prefer other sites. There was some interest in the livestock articles and task force, but I don't remember finding many project pages for farm machinery. Maybe someone can direct me? —PC-XT+ 04:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge or delete (whatever the proposal may be). Nom writes: "(Plastikspork Did you get around to merging parameters, as mentioned then?)", which shows that they themselves did not prepare this proposal, did not even bother to check. Then in a subthread the nom diverts into wordplay and evasion. Also, the nomination is actually an explicit merge proposal, requiring edits to another template not tagged. In short, an incomplete and incorrect proposal, and then steered away from sense by the nom themselves. -DePiep (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that a nominator "themselves prepare [a] proposal", whatever that may mean. Once again, you are trying to derail a perfectly reasonable proposal by inventing rules on the fly. Please stop. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep's comments seem clear to me. If you're going to propose something then you should at least attempt to ensure that your proposal is practical. You should have already checked whether parameters had been merged before proposing. You know how to do that so there is no excuse not to. You know that the D9 infobox was problematic at the last TfD, yet you chose to use a much easier article to use as an example. Quite simply, you haven't adequately prepared for this nomination. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps comments could be limited to the issues at hand with out attempts to make unasked for personal comments about other editors' competency. Thank you.(Littleolive oil (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
As far as I am concerned, the competence has a direct influence on the proposal. From the nomination onward, into the discussion flow. It is aimed at improving the discussion, not a PA (as you wrote in the editsummary). Oh and is your comment also triggered by someone writing (or stabbing) "Did you read either?" above? Why not? -DePiep (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really Andy, ENOUGH is ENOUGH. Criticising somebody for formatting their post in a manner that you don't like is both incredibly petty and being overly pedantic. In your post you wrote "How did you last attempt" instead of "How did your last attempt". Should we criticise your spelling? Your nomination for {{Infobox Rome episode}} claims it's a wrapper for a redirect, ironically one that you created. Has anybody mentioned that before now? Let's stick to the issue at hand. Have you created that Caterpillar D9 infobox that I asked about 4 days ago? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
re Andy: read WP:THREAD; don't edit my post unless absolutely necessary; competence in this is your issue, snotty remarks are not good talkpage behaviour anywhere, and if you have any serious question for clarity please start asking. -DePiep (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't really think these nominations are totally wrong. The nom is just asking for discussion. He's hard to understand, sometimes, but so are we. Let's just keep to the subject of the template and assume good faith. —PC-XT+ 04:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked Andy often enough and once more to prepare a proposal more seriously, to actually help that discussion. Also, I asked to keep a discussion productive, without snarks and chasing away editors (btw you could have asked for AGF in there too, why didn't you?). Claiming AGF does not allow an editor making a bad discussion ensuing. And apart from good faith, Andy can bring in some WP:COMPETENCE too. Being "hard to understand" is not a problem, an issue follows when that the editor does not want to help themselves and others in explaining, communicating, bringing some effort to the page. As things go now, every serious critical question gets a deviative or snarky response. In that flow, no one can claim a "right to AGF" from others. -DePiep (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. I and others have also asked for such help from PotW. Where didn't I ask for AGF? There are so many discussions, I don't say it every time this happens. My statement here was that we should AGF; it wasn't entirely directed at you, but myself and, (though not very implicitly,) Andy, as well. I have my problems with Mr. Mabbitt's nominations, or rather discussions of them, including this one and others on this same page, but he does try to edit for the good of the encyclopedia, as I think most of us do. —PC-XT+ 00:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not convinced that the template can be replaced. At the last TfD Caterpillar D9 was a problematic infobox and there was no evidence that it could be converted. It has now been 15 days since I asked for a demonstration that the infobox could be converted, and 11 days since I asked a second time. No such demonstration has been forthcomining, so I must assume that it can't. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to believe that all of the cruft in the infobox in that article (including values for four different models of the tractor) must be retained in any further infobox. That assumption is false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether what you call cruft is kept in the article is an issue for discussion on the article's' talk page, not at templates for discussion. Here we need to concentrate on whether {{infobox automobile}} can replace this template and, based on tested articles, it doesn't seem to be able to. Your claim "that assumption is false" seems based on your experience as an editor of templates, not as a member of the relevant project. Have you asked what they believe should be included? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim is again bogus; parameters are routinely added to or removed from templates, without discussing them at the talk pages of individual articles. I'm entirely unconvinced that the members of WikiProject Illinois, WikiProject Palestine, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Brands, or WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors are, as your edit summary implies, experts on the flywheel power or drawbar pull of types of tractor, much less need to be troubled en mass by such minutae in relation to uncited trivia in a single article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the claim is not bogus. The content that you're speaking of is in valid fields in this template, and you can't simply choose to exclude these parameters unless there is consensus to do so, as you are well aware from the Infobox Ireland TfD. You forgot to mention Wikiproject Agriculture, which is the relevant project for this infobox. Regardless of what you think of the expertise of members of the projects you did mention, it still requires discussion. You might be surprised how much other Wikipedia editors actually know. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proof that the claim is bogus may be found, for example, in the recent removal of |influenced= and |influenced_by= from {{Infobox person}}. The list of projects I gave is that found on the talk page of Caterpillar D9; the only place on Wikipedia where the parameters under discussion are used. I have a high regard for the expertise of the listed wikiprojcts; but not in the field of tractor flywheels or drawbars. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC
The two parameters that you mention were removed after much discussion on the template's talk page in 2013, not recently. As for this template, flywheel power and drawbar pull are not only used in Caterpillar D9. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On how many article talk pages was the removal of those parameters discussed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, "cruft in the infobox", "That assumption is false", "Your claim is again bogus" is not cooperative language and not helpful for a discussion nor towards improvement of wikipedia. Also, you are supposed to base your statements at first call. Just repeating "false" a dozen times does not make that a valid statement. In short, leave the battlefield attitude behind. -DePiep (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep, your continuing attacks on Andy are getting old-hat. When one disagrees with another editor's statement, one is quite likely to not make use of "cooperative language". And what are you trying to say with "you are supposed to base your statements at first call? It would help if you attempted to contribute in English, please. Hyperbole like repeating "false" a dozen times does nothing to calm the interactions and your edit summary, "another try to get this back on track", is a long way from the content of your contribution. Why not address the issue instead of another ad hominem? If you have nothing useful to add to the question of whether parameters can be changed in unprotected templates without prior discussion (of course they can per WP:BEBOLD), then you're not furthering the discussion. --RexxS (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2015 (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.
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: boldly moved to artice space and tagged for speedy deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article in Template space Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2014 (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.
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.
This is not template content, possible spam? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2014 (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.
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 no consensus. People disagree on whether consolidation would be beneficial. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant. A previous TfD closed as "...no consensus. It appears the redundancy issue could be resolved through the use of modules... a good first step would be to create the requisite modules, and rewrite this template as a frontend for {{infobox company}}". I have therefore enabled the use of {{Infobox website}} as a module, and added a |module= parameter to {{Infobox company}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps it is redundant, but what would happen to all the articles using this template if it was deleted? Frmorrison (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Either we merge the necessary parameters into {{Infobox company}}, or we use that template with {{Infobox website}} as a module (sub-template) of it (the changes to allow the latter are already in place). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see little reason for replacing this with some other mechanism serving same purpose. This template seems to work like it should. jni(delete)...just not interested 17:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to be nothing especially wrong with the newly created template, but I see no reason to systematically delete the existing template either. If the new templates creator wishes to replace all the older templates with his own, then so be it. But I fear the collateral damage that would ensue due to deleting the older template at this time.--JOJHutton 15:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, most useful infobox. — Cirt (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may be useful, but a merged, or modular, solution would not be less so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, dot-com companies tend to have different structures and mergers and acquisitions tend to be more common in the software world, as well it includes special options for software clients and other important information that regular company infoboxes lack. --86.81.201.94 (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if your "tend to" claims were true (I doubt it, and you offer no evidence), why is that relevant? How is it not catered for by a merger, or by having the website template as a module of the company one? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has claimed it is a policy; it was written as a FAQ to save repeating the same points in each TfD. The vast number of infobox deletions and mergers over the last four years, made on that basis, shows widespread community support for its principles; nor does its edit history evidence any dissent. I note that you advance no arguments as to why a separate template is needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My arguments to keep stand as I stated them: "There is not sufficient reasoning to delete or merge this template. It works fine as is." It is unnecessary for me to advance arguments as to why a separate template is needed... I simply give arguments about why the statis quo should be kept. - tucoxn\talk 09:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, since the justification given is summarised in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation, you are arguing that the points in that essay are invalid; yet they have been upheld in many dozens of previous template deletions and mergers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary to re-state my argument in your own words. The closing admin should read my arguments as I stated them originally: "There is not sufficient reasoning to delete or merge this template. It works fine as is." Cheers! - tucoxn\talk 21:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the difference between a Dot com and a Company. In the Western World nearly all respected companies have websites and webclients, etc. Voting "Keep" just to keep the status quo is disruptive editing, in my mind. I applaud the effort to consolidate templates, which are slippery things to maintain. Jane (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to encumber future editors of Tesco with irrelevant fields like ipv6 and programming language. I appreciate that the more templates there are, the more maintenance there is, but this has a significant number of its own fields. User:GKFXtalk 15:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal would not "encumber future editors of Tesco with irrelevant fields", whether enacted through the use of a module, or by a full merger, in which case copyable blanks of varying permutations could be provided. Furthermore, {{Infobox company}} already includes parameters which are not used on Tesco; and we do not have separate template for most other types of company. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's very reasonable. Having addressed that, I see no reason not to delete. User:GKFXtalk 17:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is probably the most used template on here and personally I see no point in replacing it with an infobox that basically does the same thing anyway ... I'm not keen on the infobox's name tho but meh it's least of the 'pedias problems. –Davey2010Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 20:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well lets put it this way - I've never seen an article that's used the "Infobox dot-com company" infobox before and that's despite editing every random article here, But if those are legit numbers than I guess I'm wrong there...., Thanks for badgering myself and others tho. –Davey2010Talk 05:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I previously !voted for rewriting as a frontend, and said the steps taken by the nom would be good, as well. A frontend would show how redundant the template really is. As is, I say they are probably redundant, but if a problem is found in the replacement process, I hope it is handled appropriately. I may actually !vote if I have time to construct a wrapper, myself. —PC-XT+ 04:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um... There are some small problems. Infobox website displays the typo "wesbite" when used as a module, and I spent a long time trying to get the module to work inside Infobox company because the documentation says the parameter is |module=, but is actually |Module=, in title case. If lowercase is not preferable, the documentation should be changed. I have read that these templates are updated by bots such as OKBot, but haven't seen any recent edits of that kind. —PC-XT+ 05:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll try to look at it, again, and return with a parameter map and !vote. So far, it does seem to basically be two templates spliced together, which would be better in module form. —PC-XT+ 00:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some labels are linked in the dot com one that are not in the others, such as Products, but this is probably a small issue. I put a wrapper in the sandbox, but it will need some changes. I did not keep the screenshot collapsible, though that is probably desirable. Location is an alias of location_city, instead of a separate parameter as in infobox company, as that is how the current template handles it, though I'm not sure if that is appropriate. The dot-com infobox includes fields for individual key people, which are hard to merge back in to |key people= if that parameter is also used, since they will be separate lists. A bot could do this better than a wrapper. I have not yet mapped Country of origin, IPv6 support, computing platform (native clients) or advertising, but maybe I or someone else will find ways, later. If there are instances where these are important, the replacement should not be made, there, yet. The module has some options the current template lacks, such as years for data. I don't know if it will be appropriate in all situations, though, until the wrapper/mapping is better. You can compare on the testcases page. —PC-XT+ 06:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion, because the dot-com template is redundant to other templates and so unnecessary. However, this is not a vote, and you offer to argument to the contrary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It took me a while to find this template when I needed it. It was luck, actually—I probably would've just used Template:infobox company if I hadn't stumbled upon this one by accident. Wouldn't it be more intuitive if there were just one template? Users could just follow the instructions for that single template, rather than performing an exhaustive hunt for the most specific applicable template. —Zenexer [talk] 01:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful template. I don't see a reason to delete this template. Most editors find it useful when writing articles about online companies or social media sites.--Chamith(talk) 03:03, 31 January 2015 (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.
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 no consensus. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary wrapper for {{Infobox episode}}; can be safely Subst:, as shown here. There were only ever 22 episodes.
I have already replaced the template's list of episodes with a link to the episode list article, regardless of this TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This template was last nominated in February 2014 with the result "no consensus". I tried merging this into {{Infobox television episode}} using custom parameters for the fields that don't exist in that infobox, but that was rejected. The infobox was converted to a wrapper by Plastikspork because it contains 3 parameters that don't exist in Infobox television episode. Pigsonthewing's removal of the episode list (the 4th non-standard item) now opens the possibility of creating two additional templates for the season lists, which are provided for in Infobox television episode. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need whatsoever for sub-templates for episode lists; each article using the nominated infobox template already has an episode list, in the navbox {{Rome (TV series)}} at the foot of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The community disagrees with you on that one. {{Infobox television episode}} has a field, |season list= specifically for linking to "a template containing a list of episodes in that season". --AussieLegend (✉) 05:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:The last thing we need are separate templates for every single television series ever aired. Sheesh! Montanabw(talk) 22:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do you suggest that the extra parameters not present in Infobox television episode are handled? Should we just say "screw you" and ignore them? --AussieLegend (✉) 07:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've already looked at the example, which stopped information from the custom fields being displayed. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really Andy, that's very shoddy work. You've been around long enough now to know that you should check your work before leaving an article, and you should know that you shouldn't make test edits in articles unless it's necessary. In this case it isn't. You could have created a side-by-side comparison on the testcases page, instead of a one-sided change in one article. There's no excuse. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I did extensive testing at hundreds of articles before making the code live with no problems. It was only after it went live that the problem appeared. The resolution was not at all what one would have expected. Nice try though. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AussieLegend, please comment on the topic and don't get into the personalities here. Montanabw(talk) 00:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you direct your comment to those who call other editors, quite incorrectly, a hypocrite. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aussie is quite to the point here. Montanabw, a response not fitting your idea does not mean it's personal. Also, by bringing out the PA flak so careless it might well be you who should reconsider. -DePiep (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Though the technical aspects of this discussion are too big for my little brain, I do notice (and I mean no disrespect by this) that Montanabw's deletion justification is essentially a slippery slope logical fallacy. "If we keep this template, then we gotta keep ALL the templates!" "If we let the gays get married, then what? Brothers marry sisters? Men marry children?" That sort of thing. If the rationale is fundamentally unsound, then the "Delete" amounts to little more than a vote, and consensus is not achieved through voting. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb:, with all due respect, there are so many of these discussions, it is not worth a learned treatise for every one. The point is that these templates should not be Balkanized into a zillion different ones when something like {{Infobox television episode}} can cover everything, and usually better. Templates are difficult enough for the non-programmer user (like me), and to go hunt down an obscure one is such a total waste of time and effort. The gold standard is {[tl|Infobox person}}, where the documentation allows you to select the simple version or the more complex one, similar approaches would work here. Montanabw(talk) 00:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I've explained above, deletion of this template, which requires no ongoing maintenance, opens the way for the creation of two season list templates in its place. That makes no sense. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically a wrapper that could be turned into a module, but AussieLegend seems to think that direct use of the wrapped template would be asking for unneeded information to be added to the infobox, so I hesitate to !vote for that. —PC-XT+ 00:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now, and revert any premature orphaning. the last thing we need is to be jamming infobox|child=yes directly into articles. Frietjes (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2015 (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.
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 per nom Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I agree with the nominator; there is no need for a separate template in this circumstance. --hmich176 09:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Paewiki (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC is a whole lot different. In case you are covering a U.S network, the U.K stuff is not needed - copy the BBC infobox nation/region stuff to the Infobox broadcasting network template61.6.211.3 (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The destination template documentation has been marked as "outdated" and "incomplete" since March 2014. Those problems, whatever they are, need to be corrected before this merger is completed. SBaker43 (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those templates seem to refer to the documnattion, not the template itself. As there are no outstanding issues on the talk page, I've removed them. In any case, documentation is updated when a merge taes place. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Create a module for the BBC part, thus leaving the original part alone.202.160.36.103 (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2015 (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.
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 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.
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. There is concensus that having two navigational templates is redundant. There is no consensus on whether to merge the navbox to the sidebar, or the sidebar to the navbox Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – This one's a 'sidebar'; {{Paris transport network}} is a Navbox. They're not the same and the uses are different. --IJBall (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then I think I'd rather see the Navbar go than the sidebar. So my vote's unchanged. --IJBall (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When do you think a reader is more likely to want to jump to a related article; when they've just read the first article, and are at the bottom of its page; or when they're still at its top, before they've read it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It depends - maybe the reader never reach the bottom because of all the references and external links. Christian75 (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some people never look below the fold. They can see infoboxes; if there isn't an infobox, they probably see a sidebar, but not a navbox. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sidebars are often not as useful as infoboxes, and navboxes at the bottom are generally less intrusive. I am curious why this area needs BOTH a side and a bottom navbox, can't they be combined into the bottom navbox and the side one replaced with an infobox? Discuss? Montanabw(talk) 00:53, 2 January 2015 (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.
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 and replace with {{Infobox station}} or {{Infobox MTR}} as applicable. 23:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe those are compatible with the Infobox station style parameter, though they'd need to be moved. Mackensen(talk) 12:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sameboat: I used the multiple style pages for each station using {{Infobox MTR}} as a work-around for {{Infobox station}} requiring a separate style page for each style. If {{Infobox station}} could be modified to allow multiple styles on the same page or in parameters of the template those style pages would not be needed. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 05:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why each station would require a style. This should be a system wide thing. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc86035 and Sameboat: I am actually against these styles, as the colour is unlikely to pass WP:COLOUR. — Peterwhy 15:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it would be better to show the station livery instead of black-text-on-white-background, because there isn't a parameter in {{Infobox station}} for showing the station's livery (which is what {{Infobox MTR station}} does); it's in line with the Chinese Wikipedia, Cantonese Wikipedia, and Japanese Wikipedia template styles; and it looks less boring. I guess a mouseover/dropdown saying "This station has turquoise livery with rainbow stripes" could be added? but if we should remove it, then the livery colouring will be omitted. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 15:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there were a field in {{Infobox station}} for livery colours and every existing field specific to each rail system... — Peterwhy 16:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is what the {{{style}}} parameter can do, but it should be for each system not every station. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the discussion here is to make every station page start with {{Infobox station}}, then I am afraid that this is a valid loophole: one style for one station. — Peterwhy 16:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you want "one style for one station"? Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Perhaps you don't understand that I am talking about the MTR version here, not the generic one. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know we are talking about the MTR styles, and I have said I am against these styles. I was merely pointing out that, if every page is to use {{Infobox station}} directly, then this is a possible use of the style parameter, even if this is unlike how the authors of {{Infobox station}} thought it should be used. — Peterwhy 01:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Secondarywaltz: To my understanding, neither the system or corporation have a distinctive livery style except for its logo. The usage of the logo could rise some issue of copyright/trademark when it's used excessively in all MTR-related pages (including templates). The station livery color is so distinctive and the similar color is rarely shared by 2 adjacent stations. I agree the station styles could be done more legibly, but not in any attempt to eliminate them wholesale. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK - let me try this again. The different decoration of each station is better shown by a picture in the infobox and any attempt at a style is only an interpretation of that. The corporate style in the signage at the entrances and exits is white lettering on black or dark blue. If the logo is copyright it does not need to be used. There are numerous other examples. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – no different parameters except for exits, shops, lifts, escalators and a few custom parameters; exits are listed in station articles, and the rest are not very notable/important. The template also links to station map and timetable, but could be better listed in the article and properly referenced. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 05:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion or merge: Do not need multiple infoboxes for every mass transit system in the world. Tweak the parameters and toss this one. Montanabw(talk) 00:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I also think that the extra parameters just overload the infobox with superfluous information. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replace by {{Infobox MTR}} – @Pigsonthewing: do you think rewriting {{Infobox MTR station}} as a layer over {{Infobox station}} would be acceptable to you? If so, then the nominated template can be simply replaced by {{Infobox MTR}}. After all there are attributes that are best set for the whole metro system, and that is the use of a template. (Also note I was a major editor of the nominated template back in 2012, before its usage was gradually replaced by {{Infobox MTR}}) — Peterwhy 15:17, 4 January 2015 (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.
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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 112 transclusions, and the way that the system is growing, are likely to be several more. The template has several parameters specific to Manchester Metrolink which are not present in the suggested replacement. If there is any problem or redundancy with this template, surely it would be better to discuss the matter at its talk page, or on the talk page of one of the relevant WikiProjects, rather than take it to the somewhat antagonistic world of TfD? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the "unique" parameters have direct equivalents (|Metrolink line= == |line=; |Metrolink Zone= == |zone=). If there are any that do not, perhaps {{Infobox GB station}} would be better match? Or the "year/event" parameters proposed for addition to {{Infobox station}}, elsewhere on this page? As for replacing Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, that would require an RfC; but this is not the forum for that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|Metrolink line= is not at all equivalent to |line=. The latter is plain text - the former is an integer which is used to decide which route map to show, and what heading to put in the yellow strip above that. I didn't say that we should replace Wikipedia:Templates for discussion - I had hoped to imply that it would be courteous to invite those who use these templates most frequently to discuss any perceived problems before the matter gets thrown open to comments from the floor. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those who use the templates most are indeed invited to discuss them, though a prominent notice on the template's page, and on each article that uses it. But they enjoy no special privileges. There is no need to use one-off code to display maps and headings, especially for a relatively lightly-used template; the raw text/ file names can be entered as they are replaced by a bot or script. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, routes are altered. This might mean that a station is moved from one route to another, and all we need to do is alter one number in each of the affected stations' infoboxes. Or it could mean that a route is renamed, and then all we need to do is to alter the infobox and all the stations on that route now show the new name. The whole point of having a template is so that you don't have to have the same content repeated across the wikitext of many articles. If that is not why we have templates, we might as well substitute it right out to the basic table markup. Maintenance would then be an absolute nightmare. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How often does that happen? How many changes are involved? How is it an issue for Manchester, yet not for all the other districts and countries, that don't have unique infoboxes for their light rail systems? Your final argument is a straw man. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They're specific and customised to this system. Lots of unnecessary work replacing them for no obvious benefit. G-13114 (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A plea for some perspective: In recent months, we have decided that we do not need separate infoboxes for stations in Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, France, India, Iran, The Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain or Switzerland, not to mention those on local systems in Bilbao, Bucharest, Budapest, Copenhagen, Glasgow, Melbourne, Milan, Monterrey, Montreal, Moscow, Munich, Oslo, South East Queensland, San Francisco (BART), Seville, Trondheim Vancouver, Victoria, and many more; and have merged (or are in the process of doing so) the respective templates into {{Infobox station}}. There really is no case to be made that the Manchester network is somehow different to all those, in the parameters that we record for its individual stations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But often with two or three regular delete/merge voters. And the bonus, the new mega template is fully protected so only admins/template editors can edit it. Christian75 (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if others want to get rid of their own infoboxes that is up to them, as far as I know Wiki policy is made by consensus and the consensus is that this infobox makes maintenance easier than a generic template which requires heavy customization on each page it features contrary to the opinion of a lone drive by editor. WatcherZero (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into more generic template. We don't need separate templates for every country in the world, we most certainly don't need them for every city on the planet with a mass transit system, all of them have some unique properties, just like snowflakes... Montanabw(talk) 21:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator did not even bother to check parameter list. Then claiming "redundant" is wrong (with the nominators being familiar with templates, this is incompetent). -DePiep (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep, focus on the specific issue and do not personalize or attack the contributor. Montanabw(talk) 00:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Noted that you (again) make no attempt make a case for the retention of this template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do. I say that the proposal is botched from the start, I have pointed out the errors in your proposal, and you don't even try to fix or address them. And so this discussion should close as "no consensus", or actually "bad process". -DePiep (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as long as you create a dedicated page for the Metrolink station, but keep a small section dedicated to the Metrolink. Therefore, you can put the infobox in its own page! Pjm0512 (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So far 4 Keep, 1 Delete, 1 Delete with conditions. WatcherZero (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball clause, if a proposal has not a snowballs chance in hell of reaching consensus in favour and its proposal is bureaucratic then it should be dropped, also Notvote doesn't apply, everyone has provided a reason for their decision not simply a numerical vote. currently there are more reasons to keep than to delete to comply with a attitude agreed elsewhere. Therefore propose speedy close to deletion discussion under WP:Buro, Wiki is not a bureaucracy, policies decided elsewhere should not be automatically applied to all articles. WatcherZero (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion about whether to delete a single infobox; not aboutca policy. The snowball "clause" dos not apply here. Also, you miscounted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I would support deleting but I think it would be easier to retain the template and transclude {{Infobox station}} through it instead of having a completely unique infobox, so all custom formatting like line numbers and placement can be kept. {{Infobox station}} might require a few changes though. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 04:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IdeaThe plan I have had is to for the time being merge the 8 UK templates (GB Station, Disused, Manchester, London, London Tram stations, Midland Metro Stops, Heritage and Closed London, and any others into one UK/GB rail/tram station one. This alone would be a massive simplification and with the UK have a quite unique rail network merging all into the "international infobox" really wouldn't work! Have the standard GB stations infobox and have a section for Local transport authorities TfL, TfGM ect and another for Light Rail/Tram. Mark999 (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2015 (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.
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. There is clear consensus that {{Infobox Ireland disused station}} should be merged in to {{Infobox Ireland station}}. There is more opposition against the merge into infobox station, and good arguments are being made by AussieLegend about the complexity and time investment of the merge. The suggested alternative, merging to GB Station is in this discussion only explicitly supported by PC-XT, and only as a step on the way of doing a total merge into infobox station including the GB templates. That is however outside the scope of this TfD. Reading through previous discussions about the GB stations, even if they're a little older by now (2012) shows no consensus for that action either, which means I take PC-XTs opinion as fully opposing. Taking also the headcount (7 v. 4) for performing the merge as proposed into consideration, merging as proposed is indeed the outcome of the discussion Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
addendum. The close didn't address the parameters that the nom mentions to be discarded or merged, and the original close "merge as proposed" would also mean leaving out those parameters. However, that's not supported with consensus here. Those that indicated they wanted to merge didn't indicate whether they wanted those links merged or removed. In the implementing discussion there is clear opposition against it, which means it isn't uncontested either (even if it isn't explicitly addressed in this discussion). Leaving out those nav links from the merged template was implied in what was written, but not in what was intended as the original closure of the discussion. To make it explicit, there is no quorum to determine consensus to leave out these nav links from the merged result, and this discussion does not show consensus to change the status quo of including the links. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Propose mergingTemplate:Infobox Ireland station and Template:Infobox Ireland disused station with Template:Infobox station.
No need for country-specific templates. In particular the Ireland station template's "year/ event" parameters should be made available in the more generic template (that will also facilitate further merges in future). The navbox-style links at the foot of the Ireland template should probably be discarded, but otherwise can be displayed through the use of a switch detecting the |country= parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keeprevised vote below - This template was nominated for deletion only last year, with the result being Keep then and nothing has changed. Not only was the result keep, but the discussion for {{Infobox NI station}}, which was also nominated by Pigsonthewing at the same time, closed with the decision that Infobox NI station should be merged into this template, which was done. At the time, I suggested that both could probably be merged with {{Infobox GB station}} since that was more logical due to the similarity between the templates, but that wasn't considered. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was a deletion discussion, and did not include the "disused station" infobox; this is a proposed merger. You offer no justification for keeping a separate template, nor for merging with the UK station infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it was a deletion or a merge discussion is really irrelevant. It still involves, effectively, deleting this template in lieu of another. I haven't suggested a merge with Infobox GB station because, as I indicated, that proposal was ignored at the previous discussion. However, that makes a lot more sense than merging to Infobox station because, as I indicated above, the templates are similar and also are closely related. Did you bother discussing this with the end users or maintainers of Infobox GB station prior to nominating again or after the last discussion? As for me not offering justification for keeping a separate template, "no need" is hardly justification for a merge. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "No need" is a good reason to merge; and you've been around TfD - which stands for "Templates for discussion", where anyone is welcome to comment - long enough to know that (anyone new to this arena can find the justification explained at length, in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's really no need to have 213 infoboxes for people when we could just use {{Infobox person}} but the community has decided we need all of the templates in Category:People infobox templates so "no need" on its own is no reason to merge. Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation is just an essay that doesn't address specific infoboxes. You really need to provide specific justification, otherwise we could just argue that there's "no need" to delete a stable infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The community has decided to have a variety of biographical infoboxes where there is a need because significantly different parameters are required. It has also decided, over the past few years, to merge, redirect or delete a far greater number of such infoboxes, where their parameters are similar; or can be usefully applied more generally. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those templates aren't as far apart as you might think and most can be embedded in {{Infobox person}}. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
don't merge. These work fine as is. There is no need to create a massive ammount of additional work plus different templates have their own benefits and it's up to each country's Trains Project to make these sorts of decisions (it should never be made on a global scale all at once).Monopoly31121993 (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into {{Infobox station}} it will apply worldwide. Categories are used to group articles by nation and such, infoboxes are not for categorization. We could in theory, wind up withover 100 templates, one for every nation in the world with mass transit. That would be absurd. Many articles do just fine with the basic one, and extra parameters can be added if needed, see, e.g. [1]Montanabw(talk) 21:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would make far more sense to merge this into {{Infobox GB station}} as that template is more closely related to this one than Infobox station. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both into Infobox station. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As Andy said on a Keep statement "This is (supposed to be) a discussion, not a vote; the exact changes are a matter for the community to discuss and decide upon." Robevans123 (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please indicate what changes (other than perhaps adding parameters) are being proposed to be made to Template:Infobox station. If there aren't any, please justify spamming every person viewing a railway station article with an infobox that isn't in either GB or Ireland with a totally unnecessary and fugly message. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The message is there because it's required by the TFD rules. If you object, you should start a discussion to see if there is interest in changing the rules. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The actual problem here is not the TfD rules, it's that Pigsonthewing refuses to add |type=infobox to the nomination because Twinkle doesn't include the option. It's a very easy thing to add but he expects others to do it. Because he won't, the TfD banner is unnecessarily spammed across the width of the page instead of neatly over the top of the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No need for a separate one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least until the proposer has adequately answered the question on what changes are proposed for the widely used Template:Infobox station. However I have no objection to the deletion of, or changes to Template:Infobox Ireland station -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is (supposed to be) a discussion, not a vote; the exact changes are a matter for the community to discuss and decide upon. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say merge. There was no need to create a template specific to this article, when a universal template existed that could serve the same purpose.SecretName101 (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Why is merging to Infobox station a better option than merging to {{Infobox GB station}} which is a more closely related infobox? It really doesn't make sense not to merge with that template. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Andy! You just know that Northern Ireland is British, and the template covers those stations too. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also know that the "Ireland" in the template name is a reference to the island of Ireland, most of which is not British. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to "we don't need country specific templates"? Infobox NI station and Infobox Ireland station were tailored specifically for Ireland and Northern Ireland but I merged them. As I explained at the last TfD, Infobox Ireland station and Infobox GB station are very similar and could be merged into a new template called Infobox UK station without a great deal of difficulty and without losing anything, which won't happen if the template is merged into the generic Infobox station. They're very similar templates so this is no real issue. Or do you have something against the Irish? --AussieLegend (✉) 01:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"What happened to 'we don't need country specific templates'?" Nothing. I'm describing the current state of affairs, not defending it. Furthermore, the Republic of Ireland is not part of the UK, and far from your farcical "something against the Irish" rhetoric, I respect their right to self-determination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant. The point is that the two infoboxes are very similar so it makes more sense to merge them. The name can easily be changed to something that doesn't offend the delicate sensibilities of those who might be offended by the suggestion that Ireland might somehow be related to the UK in some way. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only the disused version into the Ireland one, but don't merge into IS or GB unless GB is also merged into IS. My reasoning is this: The goal seems to be to merge the country station infoboxes together into IS. We could leave the question of how to actually merge to the people doing it, if we added the GB one to this list. If the GB one has consensus to stay separate from IS, I currently do not know which should be the merge target. IS is more generic, and may be the final target for all countries, but GB is closer in scope and other aspects. I do think it should be merged to one or the other, once this question is overcome. (I currently lean towards merging with GB, first, then merging that into IS, if that is feasible.) —PC-XT+ 03:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not calling to keep it. There seems to be little doubt that it should be merged. The only difficulty is determining where it should be merged. I can only !vote for merge if that difficulty is moot, that is, if the GB template is merged, as well. Otherwise, I am leaning towards a merge with the GB template, which basically means opposing this, which I do not really want to do. I'm hoping we can resolve this here, instead, but if not, at least merge the Ireland templates together. —PC-XT+ 11:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both with {{Infobox GB station}} - It appears that those voting for a merge have not really investigated the parameters used in these infoboxes. There are significantly more than the 6 that one editor has suggested be merged making a merge more complex than the merge proponents apparently believe. There are actually more parameters that need to be merged than parameters that already exist in Infobox station. Infobox Ireland station and Infobox Ireland disused station are only used in 502 articles. Infobox station is used in 16,177 articles and adding the parameters necessary to functionally replace Infobox Ireland station and Infobox Ireland disused station just serves to unnecessarily bloat Infobox station with parameters that would be used in less than 3% of articles. As I've mentioned above, a more sensible approach is to merge Infobox Ireland station and Infobox Ireland disused station with Infobox GB station, which already includes many of the parameters that exist in Ireland station and Ireland disused station. A side by side comparison of GB station, Ireland station and station demonstrates this.[2] Only the nominator has demonstrated any opposition to this proposal. That parts of Ireland are not part of Great Britain is really irrelevant. Infobox names can be changed. This is far simpler and can be achieved in less time than a merge with infobox station. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:21, 22 January 2015 (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.
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.
Question -- Will the Korean language parameter and the logos be kept if the mergers take place? Because if so, I can agree with merging them. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
{{Infobox rail line}} has parameters for logos and a foreign language, if you also provide the language code. We could try to wrap first, then substitute or merge as appropriate. —PC-XT+ 03:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I started a wrapper, but it needs some improvement. Color is not properly handled, for instance. Feel free to edit it. —PC-XT+ 05:10, 12 January 2015 (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.
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 and replace with see also links per Frietjes. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really necessary, given that the band only have one release with its own article? Lachlan Foley (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. If there is a general consensus that having a template for this band is a bit excessive, I will graciously accept the outcome. Shaneymike (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
replace with see also links, then delete. Frietjes (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2015 (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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 8#Template:Infobox German railway vehicle. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)