Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 21 January 23 >

January 22[edit]

Template:Infobox academic division[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 There is no consensus to merge at all: in fact, there is strong opposition against it. I know this is not the right way to file the paperwork and I urge Cunard or Martijn Hoekstra or some other kind soul to close this properly. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox academic division (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (77 6 16 128 transclusions)1
Template:Infobox university (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (19,369 19,464 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox academic division with Template:Infobox university.
A previous TfD to replace Academic Division after replacing instances with the more generic template closed as "no consensus", because some people preferred to insist on a formal merge proposal rather than discuss the merits of the template in question.

It is redundant to the generic template (which already serves for faculties, schools, colleges, and other types of parts of universities, which currently use the AD template).

The parameters unique to the AD template are |canton=, |prefecture=, |region= (the documentation of the University template says |province= is for "all other administrative subdivisions"), |alumni=, and |symbol= (the latter pair are not specific to academic divisions, and may apply to any University or sub-set of one).

Here is an example replacement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1I have replaced the transclusions of the AD template which do not use the parameters listed above. Further investigation shows that |symbol= is unused. |alumni= is used in the remaining six transclusions, but its meaning is not clear (one is footnoted "The number of living alumni as of the year 2012"; others not, and most are uncited). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please use |type=sidebar with {{Tfm}} when nominating infoboxes in the future. 31.153.43.216 (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Keeping it in Infobox academic division gives a better semantic meaning. – nafSadh did say 02:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Although semantically these infoboxes would appear to have different functions, the nomination shows that they have essentially the same parameters and can thus be merged painlessly. Infobox academic division should be maintained as a redirect to Infobox university. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per my !vote in the previous discussion (keeping this as a redirect) —PC-XT+ 04:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC) 04:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per TTO, the name difference is no reason for keeping a template that shares many parameters with university and is substantially a recent fork of the earlier template.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Andy. This is similar to {{Infobox politician}}. Would make things less confusing. Bgwhite (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I created this specifically for its semantic value, but the intention was to eventually extend the template with other details specific to such divisions (which I've yet to consider or enumerate, unfortunately). My intention was to merge university and college infoboxes to {{infobox university}} (as has already been done with some infoboxes), and also to merge infoboxes for all academic divisions (medical and law schools, faculties, departments, etc.) to {{Infobox academic division}}, which I began with the creation of these template redirects. Mindmatrix 17:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were more "parts of university" using {{infobox university}} than the nominated template, even before its nomination. The semantic value can be derived from the presence and contents of |parent=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why did you replace all uses of this template before resolution of this discussion? The point of such discussions is to come to a consensus, then act on that consensus, not to preemptively act on a proposal then have to undo such changes if consensus doesn't agree with that proposal. Mindmatrix 17:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody did. However, since the template is demonstrably redundant, many instances were replaced with a more suitable, generic template. The existence of a TfD does not preclude this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside: infoboxes in general could benefit from separating location-related info into a separate template or module to deal with naming of subnational jurisdictions (that is, whether to use state, province, canton, prefecture, etc.) and their display in the infobox. Mindmatrix 17:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger I have to agree with our colleagues who believe that usability trumps minor technical issues or unnecessary consistency. I understand how the templates overlap but it seems like it's much more important to ensure they remain useable by editors than to combine them simply because they can be combined. ElKevbo (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what way do you believe that the more generic template less usable? Indeed, the reverse is true; the nominated template's only unique field in use has such poor usability that no-one seems to know what it is for. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not enough valid arguments showing reason to merge. --NotWillyWonka (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge per ElKevbo's rationale above. This is more template merging for the sake of template merging. Sometimes a specifically tailored template is superior to a generic one-size-fits-all model. The nominator might receive less opposition and save himself a great of time and aggravation if he would simply run such proposals by the relevant WikiProjects before dropping them here at TfD -- he might even receive some helpful advice as to what could be easily and appropriately merged from the viewpoint of editors who use the templates on a regular basis. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dirtlawyer1's comments make no points in favour of keeping two templates; why a template currently used in only six articles is supposedly needed, nor why the more generic one is "superior" to the one which works in over nineteen thousand other cases. His procedural comments seem to be overspill from another discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey, Andy: guess again. I'm a long-time member of WikiProject Universities. Please stop trying to discredit other editors who oppose your proposed deletions and merges. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your membership of that project does not refute my point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • And what is your "point," Andy? I found this TfD discussion because I keep Infobox university on my watch list to prevent tampering by vandals and ill-advised changes by inexperienced editors. You have a well-established pattern/bias of always wanting to consolidate/merge templates into larger, multi-purpose, one-size-fits-all master templates, sometimes without understanding the purposes and uses of those templates; pointing that out is fair game. I happen to believe that in many instances, smaller, more specialized templates that are tailored to their specific uses are often easier to use and don't create problems of inexperienced editors using inappropriate template options. You clearly have a different opinion, but my opinion is no less valid than yours, and your compulsive need to answer every !vote and opinion opposed to your merge proposals does not advance your TfD proposals more often than not. More is sometimes less, a lesson you would do well to absorb in these discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's only used on six articles because you replaced all other uses of this template before resolution of this discussion, as I noted in a comment above. This is one of the primary reasons I objected to replacement before resolution, because it could then be used to skew the discussion by stating how few articles use it. Mindmatrix 22:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unhelpful, get the ugly spam off of pages RoyalMate1 12:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You appear to be commenting on the TfD notification, not the proposal to merge and do away with the redundant template. Do you have a view on that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Yes, I oppose the merger, it seems to be independent enough to not warrant a redundancy in terms of templates. RoyalMate1 03:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Wish I'd known about the academic division infobox earlier, it would be very useful on some of the articles I edit. I've found infoboxes that attempt to be "jack of all trades" to be overstuffed with criteria and virtually unusable. Universities and university divisions are different animals with markedly different identifying information; keeping the templates separate allows for this and is conducive to editing. I agree with others above that this seems to be template merging for its own sake. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 21:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This merger does not seem reasonable simply because academic divisions are different from universities, and while currently the infoboxes are similar, a better solution would be to flesh out the academic divisions infobox so that it could be used on pertinent articles to provides more specificity. VivaLaPandaz (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "academic divisions are different from universities" As noted above, There were more "parts of university" using {{infobox university}} than the nominated template, even before its nomination. Infobox university already serves the function of showing data for universities and parts of universities. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This template is distinctly needed, a merge would suffice although there could then be problems with Good Faith Editors filling all fields for new institutions/universities and making a mess of existing/new articles, the converse could also occur but it just seems to make more sense to me to keep them separate to avoid confusion. Chris ☮(Talk) 23:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, unnecessarily duplicative and as noted above, does not do anything that {{Infobox university}} doesn't already do. -- Visviva (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose University pages almost all contain this infobox. This page should have an infobox because that is Wikipedia's format. Furthermore, I do not see any gain in removing this box - it would just make the page look less like it was for a university. Please provide examples of reputable universities with no info boxes to support your argument to remove the box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.16.56.99 (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You misunderstand the proposal, which is to merge two similar infoboxes. no article would lose it infobox as a result Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose changed to Merge. University is an institution with which "divisions" are affiliated, not the other way around (for example, Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences is operated by the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University). Try not to engage in busy work. Poeticbent talk 17:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know what this deletion request is about, but I don't think it's a good idea for "this template is being considered for deletion" at the top of infoboxes which would lead to casual readers thinking there was an error on the website. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisted as a result of deletion review.
Please add new comments below this notice.

I hope this provides a road map to anyone who is a first-time participant in this series of discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, the first nomination "closed as "no consensus", because some people preferred to insist on a formal merge proposal". The 8 December listing was the requested merger proposal. This was wrongly closed (as the 8 January DRV unanimously agreed). The current discussion is a relisting of the (thus ongoing) second nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, Dirtlawyer1 provided a neutral roadmap. No need for you to inject judgements. The discussion you try to fire here is in the wrong place. And you know that. -DePiep (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I supported the close of the first nomination to reopen as a merge proposal, which was then closed, reviewed and relisted here. I don't see how that is somehow a judgement of PotW. He fought against both closes, and only reluctantly opened the second discussion. The use of wrongly doesn't negate the fact that the DRV made that decision, though with things this heated, something like that can easily be construed. Almost anything seems to be easily construed. —PC-XT+ 23:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was not a "neutral roadmap", it was a fallacious description of events, which I have refuted with the facts, not "judgements". Here is the correct place to do so, since here is where the bogus statements were made. Now get the beam out of your own eye. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In some ways, this one seems more neutral than the one in the third (out of process) TfD, collapsed below. While it is still affected by the confusion of that section, I think this was done in good faith. Anyway, since it is incorrectdisputed, and someone else agrees this is the wrong place to discuss corrections, I'll try hiding it. —PC-XT+ 13:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC) 02:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I undid the collapse upon request on my talk page. —PC-XT+ 14:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The transclusion counts have been updated to reflect reality as of 13:30 UTC, 22 January 2015. TfD discussion participants, specifically including the nominator, are respectfully requested not to replace instances of the subject, Template:Infobox academic division, while this discussion remains open. Doing so could be construed as disruptive editing, an attempt to pre-empt the merits of this discussion, and to game the system. Such replacements will be reverted until the conclusion of this TfD. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Dirtlawyer1 refers to is the mass reverting of the replacement of this clearly-redundant template. The only 6 (six!) copies that were not replaced are those using the inadequately-documented |alumni=. The allegations of disruption are pure FUD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Andy, please do not engage in personalized commentary ("pure FUD"), and please do not attempt to "orphan" this template while the TfD remains open. Furthermore, if this template were "clearly redundant" then your arguments would probably sway more participants; as it stands two thirds of participants disagree with you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is templates for discussion Anyone - including me - is at liberty to discuss the template, its uses, and claims you make about it here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, about your orphaning edits Dirtlawyer1 wrote "Doing so could be construed as disruptive editing". That is a correct statement of fact. You responded by changing topic (clearly, orphaning is not discussing), and so you are in the wrong. I note that this reopening was from your request, so you too should obey good editorship. All in all, towards the DRV you have shown proven that you know perfectly well the rules. Nu use the rules if they work against you. And, of course, keep out the "accusations" diversion into muddy tactics. -DePiep (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is for units within universities, so tagging them with the full University infobox would be inaccurate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is that {{Infobox university}} is also for "units within universities"; and, as described at length above, the parameters are largely the same. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • One of the common points of those who oppose your proposed merge, Andy, is that we believe that academic subunits, including universities' constituent colleges, schools and other subunits would be better served by a simpler template, with fewer optional parameters, that omits the 15 to 20 optional parameters that are rarely, if ever, necessary or desirable for the subunit infoboxes, and includes a small handful of options that are specific to law, med or business schools, but not universities generally. There is nothing to be gained by creating a single all-in-one template, with its potential for misuse when a simpler template would better serve the needs of constituent colleges, schools, faculties, etc. For the primary writers and maintainers of these articles, there is no advantage to such a merge. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, that was not "one of the common points of those who oppose the proposed merge". As can be seen above, most opposers did so on the misunderstanding that the "university" infobox does not also serve for articles about "parts of universities" (it does); because they thought the template(s) would be deleted without replacement; or to remove the TfD notice from articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect: We don't need a bunch of balkanized templates where parameters are virtually identical and the few that aren't can simply be aded. Keeps things much better organized and simpler as well. Montanabw(talk) 20:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's theoretically, if at all. Would you care to reply to the commenter her commenters here that actually use the templates? -DePiep (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Outdent due to more broken indenting by DePiep]

I use the templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I said this in the procedurally closed section below, regarding the keeping of redundant templates: I happen to agree that sometimes smaller templates are better, but these problems can often be solved in documentation, if the templates are close enough that changes would affect each other, anyway. If these templates would usually not be updated at the same time, I could reasonably see them either being split into some kind of module things or kept separate. Documentation can have code to copy for each usage, and otherwise explain the differences. I don't really care about multiple front-ends, if the editors using them find them convenient. I don't think it wise to require these templates to be updated separately if a change affects both of them. This can be solved by sharing code, which can be done in a merge or by using either Lua or template modules. A merge seems the best fit in this case. —PC-XT+ 23:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Seems simpler for editors to have an infobox specifically for academic divisions. Someone above notes that good documentation of specific application possibilities could compensate, at least partly, for additional complexity of a mega-template that does everything. But truly it is less difficult to explain and to document and to use, if the academic division infobox is just kept separate. Overall administration costs appear lower if specific template kept. --doncram 18:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Doncram: Please explain how each of your assertions ("simpler for editrs"; "mega-template"; "administration costs lower") is true, given that there is only one parameter in use that is different between the two templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, Andy, Infobox university has over 60 parameters, and Infobox academic division has 24. It is self-evident that universities require more optional parameters than constituent colleges and schools do. Constituent colleges and schools also require a handful of discipline-specific an/or profession-specific parameters for business, law, medical and other professional schools which the parent universities do not. As Doncram quite rightly points out, the constituent colleges and schools would be better served with a smaller, specifically tailored infobox template that does not incorporate the unnecessary/undesirable university-level optional parameters, with their potential for improper use for academic divisions such as colleges, schools, institutes, faculties, etc. Doncram is not the first editor to make this point. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point is that the 'division' infobox has only one parameter, used - ambiguously - in only six articles, that is not in the 'university' infobox. As such, it is entirely redundant to it, and your perceived need for a simpler version is easily met by providing a tailored blank proforma, as is done with many other templates. You have yet to explain - because there is no good reason - why such a pro forma will not be adequate in this unremarkable case. Especially given that many articles on 'divisions' already use the 'university' infobox. Which specific parameters in the 'University' infobox do you believe should not be available for articles about 'divisions'? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, by this questioning you are trying to make an other editor responsible for your proposal. It is up to you to explain and convince others of redundancy. So far you have just mentioned 'redundancy' as a mantra (combined with incorrect statements): "Redundant to", "is redundant to", "he template is demonstrably redundant", "redundant to another; this has been demonstrated unequivocally", [Q: "Why did you replace all uses"] A:"Nobody did" +[1] [2], "... replacement is evidence to the assertion that the template is redundant", "this clearly-redundant template", "it is entirely redundant to it". This repetition is not making it into an argument. And the diffs in between show a contradiction. -DePiep (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Free advice, DePiep: don't get trapped into the back-and-forth with the nominator. It's a waste of everyone's time, and it only leads to more pointless back-and-forth. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andy, there are thirty-six parameters in Template:Infobox university which are not present in Template:Infobox academic division (or 60% of them), and should be excluded from Infobox academic division. A simple side-by-side comparison will show you which ones they are. There are another four or five parameters that are specific to business, law, medical and other professional schools which should be added to Infobox academic division so we may merge and redirect all of the various business, law, medical and other grad/professional school infobox templates to Infobox academic division. I thank your for asking these questions, but you're a little late. You should have asked these questions 50 or 60 days ago, instead of insisting on doing things your way and ignoring the valid concerns raised by discussion participants regarding your proposed merge.
By a 13–6 !majority, it is evident that the users of these templates do not want to merge Infobox academic division with Infobox university. The reasons that I and others have repeatedly stated during this TfD discussion (and other related TfDs) are sufficient to maintain Infobox academic division and Infobox university as separate templates. When this discussion closes tomorrow as a consensus keep, I will take this to WikiProject Universities, and ask them to discuss the parameters to be shaved from and added to Infobox academic division. If further college and school merges are required to complete the correct merges and redirects, we will return to TfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Outdenting, due to broken indenting by DePiep]

This is not a vote, and I have refuted, not ignored, the various assertions made as to why two templates are supposedly required. The closer will weigh the arguments, not count "votes". I asked you, Dirtlawyer1, "Which specific parameters in the 'University' infobox do you believe should not be available for articles about 'divisions'?" (emphasis in original). Your answer is "there are thirty-six parameters [which] should be excluded from Infobox academic division". These include, for example, |native_name=, |religious_affiliation=, |endowment=, and |chairperson=. Given that these all exist in the 'university' infobox, and that I assert that there are examples of parts of universities, variously to which each of them applies, can you say why they should not be used in such cases? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Andy, there are thirty-six parameters in Template:Infobox university which are not present in Template:Infobox academic division (or 60% of them), and should be excluded from Infobox academic division. A simple side-by-side comparison will show you which ones they are. There are another four or five parameters that are specific to business, law, medical and other professional schools which should be added to Infobox academic division so we may merge and redirect all of the various business, law, medical and other grad/professional school infobox templates to Infobox academic division. I thank your for asking these questions, but you're a little late."
    I think I was perfectly clear the first time, so I have simply re-posted my previous statement. Please feel free to do your own comparison. As for the various optional parameters you list from Template:Infobox university which are not present in Template:Infobox academic division, no, none of them are required for constituent colleges and schools, starting with the amazingly redundant list of chief officers. For example, one does not usually list the "religious affiliation" of a law school, even if it is a constituent college or school of a Methodist university. That can be done at the university-level infobox. The infobox for the constituent colleges and schools should be specific core information to the particular academic division, and should not unnecessarily repeat the more general information from the parent university. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "one does not usually list the 'religious affiliation' of a law school" may be true, but it does not answer the question of why no part of a university of any kind should ever be allowed to use that parameter. For instance, some universities have faculties which teach divinity ([3]), [4], [5], [6]), and therefore have a religious affiliation. These cases are, of course, already catered fro by {{Infobox university}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Won't reply, language to clean up first. -DePiep (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[7] Andy breaking other editors contribution. -DePiep (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I note that the nominator, in their nomination, did mention but not link to the previous very recent TfD (Nov 29, 2014). Then the nom continued to misrepresent the conclusion of the earlier outcome (see the "closed as "no consensus", because ..."). Then, when theis TfD was relisted Jan 22, that same misrepresentation was repeated (see 14:42). -DePiep (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Poppycock. The previous TfD was closed as "no consensus" as anyone can see. Likewise, anyone can see the comments there, including "I would potentially support merging..." and "Renominate for merging". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uncivil, PA. Won't reply. -DePiep (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: Please be mindful of this canvassing both here, and here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closer: Andy Mabbett, the nominator of this TfD, has a demonstrated pattern of accusing other editors of wrong-doing when they oppose his proposals in TfD discussions and thereby attempting to discredit their opposition to his proposals. In both instances linked by Andy above, both of the notified parties have already expressed their opposition to Andy's merge proposal above, with no prompting from me or anyone else. They therefore cannot be "canvassed," and contrary to Andy's accusations no canvassing has occurred. I have notified the template creator (MindMatrix) and one of the principal organizers of WikiProject Universities (ElKevbo) that I intend to request that this re-opened TfD be closed on the 7th day after its re-opening (January 29), and that they should express their closing thoughts as the template creator and a representative of the WikiProject that is the primary consumer of these templates. Frankly, many TfD participants are sick and tired of Andy's overly aggressive, uncivil and generally disruptive TfD tactics, including his repeated and often baseless accusations of wrong-doing by those who oppose his TfD proposals. It's time to knock it off, Andy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that Pigsonthewing's accusation of wp:CANVASS violation is not justified, not at all. --doncram 03:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • About the canvassing point, Dirtlawyer1 has replied. As for the TfD befhaviour by Andy Mabbett/Pigsonthewing, I am on the receiving end too so I think I am qualified to say something about that. This week alone (in the relist), Andy has hurled four snaps at me so far, which you have read by now. None belong in a TfD discussion. The issue is that deviations disrupt the discussion beyond salvage, and no fruitful result of such a sub-thread can follow -- at all. That is, whether I respond to jab or not: the subtopic is useless. With that, other Andy's subthreads are useless (one can not expect me to respond to someone who in the end will throw another stab in, or has so in the same TfD already). Let it be clear that Andy disrupts and chases away editors in one subthread, and then suggests performing a discussion in a next one. Add to this an admin's vindication of this behaviour, giving encouragement instead of denial. After all this, we are dependent on the closing admin on how the disruptions are treated.
For this I expect from the closing admin an explicit statement on how this behaviour is handled in the closing. Either all Andy's contributions are thrown out (per my previous notes), or it is accepted attitude (in which case I may ask clarification, eg for future TfDs). I do not accept a "just swallow it and keep replying seriously". It is clear that if this behaviour goes unmentioned or unevaluated in the closing, that counts as a vindication for chasing and trolling other editors. -DePiep (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I add: this is Andy editing and breaking other editors contributions. -DePiep (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe discouraging anyone from contributing is the best solution, and would like to avoid it, if possible. (I direct this at all participants.) Shouldn't we encourage effective behavior, instead? Everyone involved seems resistant to negative feedback, which tends to encourage it. How much positive feedback has been attempted? We are all so busy arguing that we overlook such things. I would like to say that I appreciate assumptions of good faith, especially in the midst of controversy. I appreciate when a misunderstanding is resolved through gaining understanding, rather than jumping to conclusions. I appreciate overcoming disagreements through cooperation, collaboration and teamwork. I may never know if an editor holds back a reply to something that irks, instead of to the matter at hand, but the conversation will flow better, encouraging a resolution, which I find rewarding in itself. If something must be said, why not say good faith is assumed, and give ample opportunity for the stick to be dropped without disgrace. I probably won't send a thanks every time, but I do appreciate these things more than many edits. I have seen everyone involved do these things at various times in the past, and I appreciated it. —PC-XT+ 09:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This is one of a number of sub-university infobox templates, in which there is minimal lack of overlap of parameters, and no persuasive reason for its existence. I see the phrase "semantic value" being used above, but see no value whatsoever being delivered. These things which could be described by Infobox academic division can and are already very effectively described by Infobox university, and without me needing to worry about whether I'm dealing with a 'faculty' or a 'college' or 'division' or 'school' or whatever. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagishsimon, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but neither you nor the nominator have expressed a compelling reason based on policy or the guidelines for the merge of Template:Infobox academic division and Template:Infobox university. Nor have either of you offered a compelling reason why articles for constituent colleges and schools should use a template that includes 36 optional parameters they do not require, and fails to include the five or six discipline-specific or profession-specific optional parameters they do need. I might also add that there is no reason for you "to worry about whether [you're] dealing with a 'faculty' or a 'college' or 'division' or 'school' or whatever" because all of those "divisions" can and should be served by an improved Template:Infobox academic division. Regards. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If extra, unused, optional parameters are the main issue, the two solutions after merging are: keep this as a wrapper or have a copy/paste section of the documentation list only those parameters needed in each case. The wrapper would be preferable if the documentation gets long enough that editors get lost in it. Otherwise, the pure documentation solution would likely be preferable, to reduce complications in maintenance. —PC-XT+ 05:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Between those, we could probably organize the documentation better, in one way or another, so a wrapper would most likely not be needed. —PC-XT+ 05:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, PC-XT, at the risk of repeating myself, there is not a single set of problems, but there exist two different sets of problems with merging Infobox academic division into Infobox university: (1) there are 35 or 36 parameters of Infobox university that are simply unnecessary or inappropriate for constituent colleges and schools of universities; and (2) Infobox university does not include five or six optional parameters that the infobox for articles about business, law, medical and other professional schools should include, but are completely unnecessary for universities. Yes, we can always improve the documentation and instructions for a given template, but the sad truth is that precious few editors read the template instructions until there is an editing dispute. The best way to insure the proper selection of infobox parameters for universities on one hand, and the constituent colleges and schools of universities on the other hand, is to maintain separate templates that do not give editors the opportunity of including inappropriate optional parameters. Universities do not need optional parameters for "affiliated hospitals" and "bar exam passage rates," nor do constituent colleges and schools require parameters for "mascot," "sports teams," and "colours" (nor do they require a dozen different options for the title of the head officer of the college or school). Please -- let's keep it simple, instead of jamming two different templates together and then trying to make an imperfect merger work less than perfectly after the fact. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The parameters not in the template at this time would be added in the merge, and neither articles nor documentation copy/paste code should include all parameters. Are we talking past each other? I see all these options as effectively equivalent, in terms of usage by editors to present relevant information, except for names: keep, keep as wrapper, merge to either a new university division template or this university template with documentation designed to make the differentiation. I would prefer the one with the least maintenance overhead, which usually means relying on documentation and actual usage (examples) in the articles, themselves. —PC-XT+ 07:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • PC-XT, we are and we aren't talking past each other. I understand perfectly well what you are proposing: you want a merge or a merge with wrap. The university-level template apparently requires approximately 60 parameters; the division-level template shares 23 or 24 of those, and should incorporate another 5 or 6 unshared parameters to be added, for a total of 6 or 7 parameters that are not shared. Both the university-level template and the division-level template will require separate documentation with separate instructions and examples for the users, with a wrapper and a redirect for the division-level templates. Frankly, I see little or no economy to be achieved with a merge-wrap here, and, yes, it would be merging for the sake of merging, contrary to the expressed desire of the actual users of these templates, who want separate templates for the sake of clarity, ease of use, and the avoidance of university-level parameters in the division-level articles. The same "economy" you desire could be achieved with the maintenance of common code for the 23 or 24 shared parameters. The additional maintenance argument is a massive red herring. At the end of the day, ease of use, and the correct selection of parameters for both the university-level template and the division-level template should trump the minor economies in template maintenance every time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, I didn't mean to suggest wrapping as more than a compromise. It is not an ideal solution, but has clear disadvantages. The advantages I saw in wrapping were that it would allow for a different set of parameters, with different documentation, on the one hand, while sharing some of the code on the other. I am often quick to suggest wrapping because it can make later decisions simpler, though in this case, I expect the same debate would continue, as it appears to be over the code organization itself, if I understand correctly. A wrapper could actually add complication to that kind of discussion. I am happy to drop the idea. —PC-XT+ 01:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - We don't need duplicates which this template basically is. –Davey2010Talk 23:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Davey2010: Respectfully, Davey, these templates are not "duplicates" and serve distinct purposes. Please see my summarized reply to The Banner below. If you would like to explore more details of the argument against merging, please follow my comments in this TfD from the bottom up. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Convenience break[edit]
  • Merge there is hardly any difference between the to templates at this moment. The few unique fields of "Template:Infobox academic division" could easily be added to "Template:Infobox university". Anyway, there will not be too many subdivisions of universities warranting their own article and too different from that university to need a different template. The Banner talk 13:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @The Banner: There are actually several thousand stand-alone Wikipedia articles about constituent colleges and schools of universities (see, e.g., these categories of university subdivisions in the United States: Category:Business schools in the United States, Category:Dental schools in the United States, Category:Engineering universities and colleges in the United States, Category:Law schools in the United States, Category:Schools of medicine in the United States, Category:Nursing schools in the United States, Category:Pharmacy schools in the United States, Category:Veterinary schools in the United States). Because of the complex web of categories, my examples are limited to the several hundred U.S. constituent colleges and schools of universities with stand-alone Wikipedia articles, but you can follow the parent categories for examples from around the world. There are hundreds of stand-alone articles for U.S. constituent colleges and schools of universities, and hundreds more around the globe.
      As for for the differences between these templates, I will attempt to summarize the TLDR wall of text above: Infobox university has 35 or 36 optional parameters that Infobox academic division does not require. Infobox academic division requires 5 or 6 optional parameters that are inappropriate for university-level articles, but are needed for the subdivision-level articles. By merging the two templates, we perpetuate the problem of incorrect optional parameter selection and use for both university-level and subdivision-level articles. The appropriate selection of infobox parameters across thousands of articles outweighs any minor efficiency in template maintenance. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have read only half of what I was writing. Anyway, there will not be too many subdivisions of universities warranting their own article and too different from that university to need a different template. The Banner talk 14:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Respectfully, Banner, I read your entire comment and understood your precise meaning; the second paragraph of my comment was written in answer to the second half of your comment. In a related TfD, we have already decided that Template:Infobox law school (215 articles) should not be merged with Template:Infobox university (see here). Please note that Infobox law school uses 25 parameters; Infobox university uses 60, 35+ of which do not apply to law schools, and are excluded from Infobox law school. Schools of business, medicine, etc., are similar in their needs for a handful of discipline-specific optional parameters while excluding the 35+ university-level optional parameters. So, yes, I read your comment and understood it well; in answer, there are already 215 law schools that a recent TfD has determined are "too different from [their parent] university to need a different template," and business, medical and other professional schools should receive the same treatment. Infobox academic division was created with the intent of excluding the 35 or 36 university-level optional parameters of Infobox university, but creating a single infobox for business, law and medical schools (as well as other constituent colleges and schools of universities) and adding the discipline-specific and profession-specific optional parameters to Infobox academic division to serve those schools (e.g., bar exam passage rate, ABA profile link, affiliated teaching hospital, executive MBA program, MBA exchange program, etc.). That horizontal merge of templates for all constituent college infoboxes still makes a lot more sense than this vertical merge of the infobox of universities and the infobox for constituent colleges. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I clicked one of your example links (Category:Pharmacy schools in the United States), chosen randomly. Then a random subcategory (Category:Pharmacy schools in Missouri). That has only one entry, St. Louis College of Pharmacy. And look what I found - not only does it use {{Infobox university}}, but has been doing so, without drama, since 7 April 2007. Further, you have provided zero evidence that "incorrect optional parameter selection and use" is a real problem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Andy, one example among thousands proves nothing. Like schools of business, law, medicine, nursing, etc., colleges of pharmacy would also be better served by a shorter, simpler template that excludes the 35+ university-level optional parameters that are not required for constituent colleges and schools. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • They - more importantly our readers - would not be well served by a template that deliberately excludes relevant parameters; such as those in that St. Louis College of Pharmacy example, which uses |colors=, |mascot=, and |athletics= - all of which data, you have made clear, you would enforce from being included in the article's infobox, for no apparent reason than your personal preference. I have no doubt that if someone spends the time, they will find other such examples in the categories you list. In fact, I expect that there are more articles about university sub-dvisions using {{Infobox university}} than have ever used the subdivision infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Andy, I have to ask you a personal question: did you attend/graduate a four-year university? Do you understand the difference between a four-year (or three-year in the UK) comprehensive university and the constituent academic colleges and constituent professional schools that a comprehensive university typically includes? I know that you're eager to make your case for merging/deleting Infobox academic division, and to discredit my arguments against doing so, but did you actually read the St. Louis College of Pharmacy article? The St. Louis College of Pharmacy is not a constituent college or school of a parent comprehensive university; according to the lead section of the article, the St. Louis College of Pharmacy is a four-year university that awards both bachelor's degrees and the professional Pharm.D. doctorate in pharmacy. Bottom line: notwithstanding the St. Louis College of Pharmacy's name, it is a four-year university, not a constituent academic college or professional school -- that is, it is not an academic subdivision of a parent university, so Infobox university would probably be more appropriate for any number of reasons. Now, compare that with the typical college or school of architecture, business administration, dentistry, education, engineering, law, liberal arts, medicine, nursing, pharmacy or veterinary science, which are constituent colleges or schools (i.e., "academic subdivisions") of a comprehensive university. Constituent colleges and schools do not have varsity sports programs, which are a university-level function; school colors are either shared with the parent university or meaningless; mascots are non-existent or irrelevant; fight songs and alma maters are shared with the parent university. So, yes, we absolutely should exclude the university-level parameters for |colors=, |mascot= and |athletics= from the infoboxes for articles about constituent colleges and schools of comprehensive universities, and our editors and readers are well served by excluding them. Your example of the St. Louis College of Pharmacy fails for the reason that it is not a constituent college or school, but is itself a specialized four-year university with a specialized graduate curriculum, and its own university-level functions (like a small varsity sports program). The fact that you believe these parameters are appropriate for the infoboxes of articles about constituent colleges and schools of comprehensive universities indicates that you do not understand these distinctions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Convenience break2[edit]
That answers that then...
  • Neutral - I don't really have an opinion either way. I'm here because this template is used on Cornell Tech and I thought it might be worth testing some of the claims with that real-world example. It is neither a "school" or a "college" but a new and separate campus, notable in its own right and with its own teaching staff and inter-institutional relationships. What would the actual impact on that article be of this proposal? St★lwart111 23:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing would happen to any current invocation in general. In specific, the cornell tech article currently uses Infobox University, and there would be no effect from merging in any paramters from infobox academic division on the article at all. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • And, Martijn, nothing would change if that article were to use this template instead (which is the question I probably should have started with)? It seems like the more logical option as the division/sub-institution of a college. St★lwart111 11:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • This proposal is to merge the two templates, and Infobox Academic Division would no longer exist under this proposal, other than possibly as a redirect; so in that case invocations of infobox university and infobox academic division might have different names, but they would do the same thing. So that would mean current use would be completely unchanged, whether the template was called with one name or the other. That makes the naming a little awkward, but you could imagine it being something like {{academic institution}} and infobox university and infobox academic division both being redirects to it. Other options could be to make a new template academic institution, and make modules academic division and university, or make thin wrappers for academic division and university that both point to the more general academic institution.

          But if this lumbering TfD needs one thing at this moment, it's closure, not further suggestions or discussion; the heat/light ratio in this discussion is way too low already, and dragging it out serves no purpose at this moment. I just wanted to answer your specific question at this point. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - feel free to open the above if you need some further explanation of my opinion. St★lwart111 11:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Stalwart111: Stalwart, you are new to this discussion, which has obviously generated a fair amount of words above. While your example of Cornell Tech could probably use either the present Infobox university or the present Infobox academic division with no adverse impact, it is important to understand the larger issues at stake. This boils down to one simple question: whether stand-alone articles for the constituent colleges and schools of universities (e.g., law schools, medical schools, colleges of business administration, etc.) would be better served with an all-in-one template of 60 to 70 parameters, or whether they would be better served with a simpler template of 25 to 30 parameters that excludes the unnecessary/inappropriate university-level parameters (e.g., colors, mascots, sports teams, alma maters, etc.)? In a related TfD, it is has already been decided that Template:Infobox law school should not be merged with Template:Infobox university (see here). Infobox academic division was created with the intent of excluding the 35 or 36 university-level optional parameters of Infobox university, but creating a single infobox for business, law and medical schools (as well as other constituent colleges and schools of universities) and adding the discipline specific optional parameters to Infobox academic division to serve those schools (e.g., bar passage rate, ABA profile, affiliated teaching hospital, international MBA exchange program, etc.). These subdivision-level parameters are not needed or appropriate for university-level articles. At the end of the day, it's not a question of whether we can merge two templates, but whether one class of articles (i.e. constituent colleges and schools) would be better served by a shorter, simpler template that only includes the optional parameters needed by that class of articles (and excluding the 35 or 36 that are not needed). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Law school infobox TfD was closed with the statement is "The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete, but feel free to debate other alternatives elsewhere". Per WP:NODEADLINE, that discussion is still pending. It sets no precedent for this discussion, and does not preclude merger or deletion of the law school template at some future point. One of my local universities, BTW, has two affiliated teaching hospitals. The FUD around parameter numbers has already bene addressed, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't we rather fewer templates with more options than more templates with fewer options? St★lwart111 00:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Stalwart111: At the end of this process, we would be very well served by only two templates: (1) Infobox university, with approximately 60 parameters, for comprehensive universities and other stand-alone colleges; and (2) Infobox academic division, with approximately 30 parameters (but specifically excluding 35+ university-level parameters of Infobox university that do not apply to constituent academic colleges and professional schools) for constituent colleges and schools of parent universities. In this scenario (which is what the creator of Infobox academic division intended), all of the currently existing infobox templates for constituent colleges and schools (e.g., the schools of architecture, business administration, dentistry, education, engineering, law, liberal arts, medicine, nursing, pharmacy, etc., of parent universities) would be horizontally merged into a single tailored template for academic subdivisions. The constituent colleges and schools do not require 35+ of the optional parameters of Infobox university, but several types of constituent colleges and schools do require discipline-specific or profession-specific parameters that are not appropriate for university-level infoboxes (e.g., bar passage rate, ABA profile link, affiliated teaching hospital, executive MBA program, MBA exchange program, etc.). These options could easily be accommodated at the subdivision-level, but are not needed or appropriate for infoboxes at the university level. If we do this right, these two templates would share approximately 24 shared parameters, but Infobox university would have 35+ parameters that are not appropriate for the subdivision-level infoboxes, and Infobox academic subdivision would have 6 or 7 parameters that are not appropriate for university-level infoboxes. The templates would have separate template documentation, including separate instructions, separate copy-and-paste examples, and separate mock-up examples, and redirects would be maintained for the former subdivision-level infobox templates. This keeps these animals separate, and helps our editors make the correct selection of optional parameters, and prevents the addition of inappropriate optional parameters. That's the original intent behind Infobox academic division, and it still makes a hell of a lot of sense. Please feel free to ping me here or on my talk page if you have more questions. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would seem like the best solution, then, would be to remove all the sub-divisional ones and the school-specific ones, leaving us with one top-level template with many options giving maximum flexibility to cover a very wide range of institutions, sub-institutions, divisions, sub-divisions, schools and even smaller (but still notable) entities. Yes, that means wading through a considerable number of inapplicable parameters in each case but surely that's better than wading through a considerable number of inapplicable templates to determine which is best? These templates would all seem to do the same thing, just with varying degrees of specificity. St★lwart111 02:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like the intentionally broad {{Infobox religious building}} which applies to grand mosques, basilicas and cathedrals, church community centres, ashrams, temples, shrines, sites of pilgrimage, and roadside prayer huts. St★lwart111 02:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Stalwart111: I do understand the arguments for the proposed merge, both in this particular case and in your example provided above. From my viewpoint, however, there is one very significant difference between the present scenario and that of Template:Infobox religious building: a quick review of Infobox religious building shows only 4 or 5 parameters that are specific to a particular type of building and/or religion; the rest could apply to a religious building of any type or religion. Infobox university presently includes 35+ parameters that are inappropriate for academic subdivisions; a revised Infobox academic division should include at least 6 or 7 parameters that inappropriate for university-level infoboxes (examples previously identified above). That's no small difference: only something like 40% of the total parameter options are appropriate to be shared by both university-level and subdivision-level articles. From my standpoint, ease of use by our editors, accuracy of parameter selection, and the simplicity and clarity of template instructions and examples trump the minor increase in maintenance by retaining two templates (versus the 7, 8 or more we have now). As for wading through 70-odd template parameter options to make correct parameter selections, that leads to more inappropriate parameter selections at both levels, increased article maintenance for the editors who work on these 20,000 articles, and the inevitable growth of infobox cruft. Merging the existing templates for the various constituent colleges and schools creates efficiency in maintenance and greater consistency in formatting and graphics, while still retaining a relatively simple template that is easy to use and less prone to using inappropriate parameters; keeping separate templates for university-level and subdivision-level infoboxes allows for greater simplicity, accuracy, and ease of use. I think I've said enough for now, and I thank you for listening. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:55, 2 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.

Template:Infobox academic division (procedurally closed)[edit]

this discussion was procedurally closed for mistakes in the relisting process
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 procedural close, temporarily, to facilitate proper relisting. Any comments still added here will be counterproductive until the relisting is done properly. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox academic division (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox university (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Re-opened and relisted per DRV. Prior no-consensus discussion here. — xaosflux Talk 04:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, Xaosflux, the disputed NAC occurred in this TfD discussion: [8]. This is now the third nomination for this template since November 29, 2014. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, in that case, {{Infobox university}} should probably be tagged and added? —PC-XT+ 07:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC) 07:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, PC-XT, it should be tagged as the proposed merge target/surviving template, and we should be working to adhere to both the letter and the spirit of the TfD notice guidelines. I do note that Xaosflux did notify the template creator. I have notified all of the other previous TfD discussion participants, too, and I will tag {{Infobox university}}, which I'm sure was an oversight. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Xaosflux notified others and myself from the one discussion, as well. It's just hard to keep these discussions straight. I didn't catch the merge discussion either, until you mentioned it, and I was one of the participants. Haha. —PC-XT+ 09:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The DRV closer writes: "I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the TfD process details, so ...". Well, it shows and now we are in this mess. Why did RoySmith not stay away from unknown territory, and invite someone with proper knowledge to close it? -DePiep (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeeeeeee, and also Xaosflux added the wrong link in this reopening. Can some authority please clean up this chaos asap, before the train wrecks in another deviation? Why do all these admins let this pass this way at all? -DePiep (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: process history:
  1. Original TfD (8 December 2014)
  2. Nom opposing closers conclusion [9] section #Infobox academic division (2 January 2015)
  3. Deletion review (8 January 2015)
  4. Conclude DRV and reopening here: 17 January, 22 January 2015.
The DRV process: WP:DRV, esp WP:DRVPURPOSE. -DePiep (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think a merge seems appropriate, though relisting as a merge discussion may be the best way to handle that. (By the way, regarding the DRV nac claim, Plastikspork (diff) is an admin.) —PC-XT+ 04:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC) 05:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
http://puu.sh/eRs6X/2fb2081076.jpg RoyalMate1 07:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge for the same reasons stated and argued in the December 8, 2014 TfD nomination, to wit:
". . . to consolidate/merge templates into larger, multi-purpose, one-size-fits-all master templates, sometimes without understanding the purposes and uses of those templates" is often a bad idea. "I happen to believe that in many instances, smaller, more specialized templates that are tailored to their specific uses are often easier to use and don't create problems of inexperienced editors using inappropriate template options" that are often included in one-size-fits-all templates. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I happen to agree that sometimes smaller templates are better, but these problems can often be solved in documentation, if the templates are close enough that changes would affect each other, anyway. If these templates would usually not be updated at the same time, I could reasonably see them either being split into some kind of module things or kept separate. —PC-XT+ 07:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and close discussion This has already been discussed and the consensus was to keep. If you don't like reading through links, heres some screenshots of the consensus: http://puu.sh/eRrvv/93b75e930c.png http://puu.sh/eRrx3/33c2d67d11.png http://puu.sh/eRryt/e83671266c.jpg RoyalMate1 07:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was a deletion review case, which invalidated the result of the previous discussion. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But why is the original nomination not reproduced here? Are we supposed to talk from zero, about an invisible proposal? -DePiep (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per my arguments from the previous discussion: Although semantically these infoboxes would appear to have different functions, the nomination shows that they have essentially the same parameters and can thus be merged painlessly. Infobox academic division should be maintained as a redirect to Infobox university

    I have no opinion on the technicalities of the discussion and whatnot; I just have an opinion on what Andy has been proposing here, which is that I support it. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you declare semantically different parameters be the same? Only because they have the same parameter name? Just consider the difference between synonym and homonym. Your conclusion is opposite to your finding. (PS, which discussion is the quote from? Could not find it.) -DePiep (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Train wreck TfD. Procedural close & re-organisation.. This TfD reopening is a chaotic setup (that is, by the opener/s). I won't spend any time on this before it is reorganised into a proper discussion. (A priory I can say: if any content conclusion is drawn from this, ie in a closure, I will oppose that for this reason). -DePiep (talk) 10:26, 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_22&oldid=1091448796"