Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 May 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 1 May 3 >

May 2[edit]

Template:Ibis Aviation aircraft[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn after creation of articles (NAC). Frietjes (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ibis Aviation aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation templates are supposed to make navigation between articles easy. But this template only has one subject to navigate between. So, not useful. The Banner talk 21:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As has been noted on many of these previous discussions before, these aircraft nav boxes are part of WikiProject Aircraft and we have a solid consensus to create them so as to provide a uniform experience for readers across all aircraft type articles. The key objection here seems to be that the box contains redlinks. As also noted before, the members of WikiProject Aircraft are in the process of a multi-year project to complete articles on all aircraft types and manufacturers, so these will get completed in the future. See WP:NODEADLINE. If this box is deleted then it will just have to be recreated as more refs are found and the missing articles are written. In the meantime it clearly spells out to readers what other aircraft the manufacturer also made and which articles are not yet written, see WP:REDLINK. The time spent by editors constantly nominating aircraft project nav boxes for deletion and the time needed to constantly debate over their usefulness would be better spent writing the missing articles. That way the encyclopedia would be constantly improved day-by-day instead of constantly degraded by deleting nav boxes. - Ahunt (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mostly as a deterrent against bringing any more of these at TfD; they do not clutter the page (they're the only one or one of two navboxes), and can visibly be expanded. Simply, not worth the acrimony these nominations lead to. Alakzi (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has been explained before per Ahunt above, to keep nominating these type of navboxes to have the same discussion is getting tiresome. MilborneOne (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Maybe someday these should all be changed into side menus below the infobox, like the WP:MILHIST {{Campaignbox}} series of templates. Go ahead and propose something like that if you feel the need (and are willing to pitch in and help with the conversion), but continually nominating these type of navboxes is becoming POINTY to the level of non-trivial disruption. @The Banner:, are you cruisin' for another topic ban? Mojoworker (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL, no arguments so attacking the nominator? The local consensus is by now a rather pointy defence that time and time again is swept aside by administrators. Just play is by the Wikip[edia-rules, a project is no independent thingy. The Banner talk 15:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: This template now has two aircraft links, not one, plus the manufacturer link for a total of three, so the original deletion rationale is no longer applicable. - Ahunt (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Okay, we have a real problem here. I could not give a rodent's furry little butt less whether we keep this particular navbox or not, and I certainly don't have an axe to grind with WikiProject Aircraft. Here's what I see -- an identifiable WikiProject believes that it is being singled out by a one editor for special treatment of its navboxes. They may have a point, in that a single editor has repeatedly nominated that WikiProject's templates for deletion. On the other hand, WikiProject Aircraft is under the horribly mistaken impression that its navboxes are not subject to the same precedents as the navboxes of every other WikiProject on Wikipedia. There should be only one standard for the navboxes of all WikiProjects, not a separate standard for WikiProject Aircraft. It's time to stop fighting these mostly red links aircraft navbox TfDs to an effective "no consensus" draw with the same half dozen editors participating. It's time that a Request for Comment be prepared and the wider Wikipedia community be asked to participate in a community-wide decision regarding single-link and mostly red-link navboxes. Seriously, folks, there should be one standard for the treatment of all navboxes based the number of links, with no special exception for WikiProject Aircraft or anyone else -- it is unfair to every other WikiProject which are being held to a different standard. Unless WP Aircraft and the nominator are willing to strike some sort of temporary/intermediate compromise -- perhaps giving WikiProject Aircraft a set time to create stub articles for all of its templates -- then I am prepared to file that RfC, and I can assure all parties, with proper community-wide notice on community-wide notice boards, WikiProject talk pages, etc., that RfC will attract dozens of editors interested in maintaining a single standard, not the same handful who have participated in The Banner's nominations over the past month or so. I suggest you work it out elsewhere, and I would be happy to mediate, but it's time for both parties to stop the squabbling, and bring this running spat to a conclusion. Otherwise, I will request that a formal, binding decision be made for you by the wider community, and by many editors who are amply familiar with the long-established precedents regarding red links and navboxes and to whom a single standard will have great intellectual appeal. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favour of that, or any other solution, that would result in an end to these endless time-wasting nominations of navboxes for deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahunt: Would WikiProject Aircraft accept a four-month moratorium on navbox TfDs to give the project time to create stub articles for its navboxes? Do we have any idea how many mostly red-link navboxes for aircraft exist? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't presume to speak for the rest of the project members and I am not sure how many redlinks there are in all the existing nav boxes today. We embarked on a project to write articles on all the outstanding aircraft types and all their manufacturers about six years ago and have been writing steadily since then. After the first round of navbox noms last August I started in on filling in the missing company articles from the nav boxes I had created and have written hundreds of them in the ensuing months, finishing those just recently. My best guess on the total number of aircraft types left to do is about 10,000, but I have no idea how many are redlinked already, nor how many manufacturers are left to be done. As per WP:NODEADLINE I am not sure it is possible to nail down a time frame. As far as this particular nav box goes there are now two redlinks. If I can make it to my central library this week I can probably find the refs to turn those blue, but all this nominating nav boxes has to stop. We can't all run off to to the library every time someone takes an exception to a redlink and dealing with these TfDs is taking up the time I have to write articles and address the problem. That is why this particular nominator ended up with a topic ban on nominating project nav boxes last summer, because these noms are stopping work on building the encyclopedia. I think we need a count on how many redlinks there are to be filled, if someone knows how to get those. - Ahunt (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really am not concerned about one or two mostly red-link navboxes, but it is apparent from the frequency of TfDs for aircraft navboxes that WP Aircraft has more than a few. My concern here is not this or any other particular navbox, but the horrible precedent this sets, the unproductive waste of TfD time with no-consensus outcomes, as well as the unequal/unfair treatment of different WikiProjects. Can you please start a discussion among WP Aircraft members regarding a TfD moratorium, how much time would be required to create two and three-sentence stub articles for more than half of the existing red links in all aircraft navboxes, and then we can start to negotiate our way out of the weeds? Otherwise, I believe the inevitable outcome of a community-wide RfC on point -- after much drama, many recriminations, and a lot of name-calling -- is going to be the mass nomination and deletion of most of the navboxes that fall into this category. I'm offering you a way out of that. Please take it to your fellow project members, and get the requested feedback regarding the scope of the red link navbox problem and the number of weeks required to stub out the articles; if these topics are notable, there should be sufficient online sources to create stubs and that will resolve the red link issue. What I'm looking for is a commitment of project members to address the problem in a defined time period in exchange for a TfD moratorium during that time. And please remind your fellow project members that WP:NODEADLINE is an essay, not policy or a guideline, and its argument only applies to article build-out, not template red links. You may continue this discussion on my user talk page if you like; with added links for newly created stubs this particular template is now likely to be kept. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dirtlawyer1, it's certainly not a "horribly mistaken impression that (WikiProject Aircraft's) navboxes are not subject to the same precedents as the navboxes of every other WikiProject on Wikipedia." As I mentioned above, the entire WP:MILHIST {{Campaignbox}} series of templates, are navboxes, even though they act more like a modular Infobox extension. Many of these have few links (I even had an example of a valid use case where a campaignbox had no links (I can dig it up if anyone's interested). Perhaps because they are side menus they are viewed differently than are other navboxes. In any case, he's also been nominating articles with no redlinks, but rather few bluelinks. I'd like to see WikiProject Aircraft move to a sidebar model for aviation manufacturer templates following WP:MILHIST's style, if that's deemed more acceptable. An additional benefit would be the ability to add an optional image (logo, map, etc). Mojoworker (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"horribly mistaken impression that (WikiProject Aircraft's) navboxes are not subject to the same precedents as the navboxes of every other WikiProject on Wikipedia." You're a damn fool if you don't accept reality, and I'm offering you way out. Otherwise you risk the mass deletion of all mostly red-link aircraft templates after a community-wide RfC. I am a member of a half dozen different WikiProjects and these are the standards to which our navboxes are held, and to which we hold the navboxes within the scope of those WikiProjects. WP Aircraft will not get a free pass when the larger community looks at this. Please consider carefully. It's your choice, and I won't lose any sleep over it if you chose wrongly. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good proposal. The Banner talk 00:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dirtlawyer, I am not a member of Wikiproject Aircraft. I've helped with a few articles and edits, but it's not really an area I'm familiar with, nor overly interested in. However I wouldn't mind helping them out from time to time, and you know, actually work on building an encyclopedia. I am a member of WP:MILHIST however and I would encourage Wikiproject Aircraft to consider a campaignbox analogue for aircraft manufacturers as in this example. That way, when/if the larger community looks at this, I'd wager there's not a snowball's chance in hell that the WP:MILHIST type of usage will be overturned, since it's being used in over 15,000 articles, many of which have few links. Mojoworker (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly happy to start a discussion as you have suggested and see if we can identify how many boxes have redlinks and how long the project members would think is needed to create articles for them all. I'll try to start that at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft quickly, as soon as I can phrase the questions that we need answers to. One issue is that all the easy and obvious aircraft type articles were long ago created, including most that have on-line refs. At this point in the project we are mostly down to tracking down old paper references and so each aircraft article can take considerable time and research to create. One question that will quickly come up is "what is the problem with having redlinks in infoboxes?", so if you can point out the policies against this, that would speed the discussion. One other suggestion that may come up is just removing the redlinks from nav boxes. Would that be a useful solution or not? - Ahunt (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is that navigation templates are supposed to aid navigating between related articles. A template with just one item just does not do that. And with two or three items it can just as easy be done by normal wikilinking instead of a navigation template. The Banner talk 23:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You put that argument forward in our previous discussion about the minimum number of links that a nav box should have. As you will recall WP:NENAN had suggested five, but the consensus there was that was not appropriate, WP:NENAN was thrown out and the consensus concluded that there was no hard minimum number of links for a nav box. If you have a concrete proposal here I would be happy to hear it. - Ahunt (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see the argument NENAN here. And you remember it incorrectly: the discussion ended with the conclusion that the essay was not a valid argument, not the number of five. By the way: NENAN is still in use as deletion argument. You better start hunting that down. The Banner talk 00:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a concrete proposal here I would still be happy to hear it. - Ahunt (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the proposal of Dirtlawyer1. And to add to that: I would suggest to upgrade the templates so they have links to at least three items in the actual box itself. So not counting a backlink to the manufacturer, in this case Ibis Aircraft and not counting the link to the type of plane/motor, usually also outside the actual box, in this case Fixed-wing aircraft. I do not mind when you add key people of the manufacturer to the template to make up the number. And to keep it peaceful: a period without nominations (at least from my part, I have no influence on others) so that you and your comrades can bring up the templates to standard from now till Christmas? The Banner talk 08:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just for information all the boxes can be seen by following the links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Templates/Manufacturer-based aircraft navigational boxes, currently 762 in the category but I have not looked at the blue/red link count yet. MilborneOne (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for that, that is helpful. I am just waiting to hear back from User:Dirtlawyer1 to my two questions and I will start the discussion at WikiProject Aircraft and see what we can come up with. One thing we need to do at the project is try to figure out how many nav boxes would need articles filled in and therefore the size and scope of the job, but need to agree on some sort of standard first as to which nav boxes are okay and which ones aren't. Two questions for you: 1. Since the requirement seems to be to "navigate between articles", why "three" articles linked and not "two"? How about two aircraft types, regardless of other links, like people, aircraft general types and the manufacturer (which is in the box heading normally)? 2. Are redlinks in nav boxes an issue? - Ahunt (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because for two articles it is still easier to connect them through normal wikilinking then through a navigation template. About the link of the manufacturer: that should be always there. A navigation box of a manufacturer without an article about the manufacturer should not even exist. Regard the content of the actual navigation box: I do not have a real preference as long as it has at least three relevant blue links (what is already a lowering of my previous stance of five). See also links are usually not considered relevant links. The Banner talk 12:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks for clarifying your thoughts on those points. As soon as I get a response from Dirtlawyer1 on his thoughts on the two questions I posed, I should have enough information to start the project discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is not merely redlinks, and, although the three bluelinks threshold seems workable (implying 2 aircraft and a manufacturer), slavishly counting links misses the broader picture that sometimes a "navigational template" is more than merely a navigational template, presenting more information, context, and consistent display of information and navigational links across a broad series of articles. This for example – is it merely a navigational template? Sometimes these will have fewer than 3 links. For a couple of WP:MILHIST examples see {{Campaignbox Mine Run Campaign}} and {{Campaignbox Fredericksburg Campaign}} – those campaigns have 2 entries, but to remove the campaignboxes from the relevant articles would leave them inconsistent with all the other WP:MILHIST articles and is addressed in the Manual of Style which says that the various navigation templates maintained by the Military history WikiProject are "beneficial for providing a consistent appearance to the entire set of articles within our scope." If this usage is considered acceptable for WP:MILHIST, then why is Wikiproject Aircraft being singled out for doing the same thing? Mojoworker (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point and one that has been made at many of these discussions, that nav boxes across all aircraft type articles creates a uniform reader experience, showing all the other aircraft the manufacturer has built and other related articles in a concise, expected and compact format. This is something we will have to get into in the Project debate. This sort of use is employed by many projects, even beyond Aircraft and History. - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They got the attention now, Mojowoker. I doubt of your templates will withstand scrutiny. On the other hand, they can easily be expanded with key people like commanders. The Banner talk 21:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given my note below that this particular nav box now has eight bluelinks to aircraft types and can be kept, I wanted to sort out the discussion parameters to take to WikiProject Aircraft before this closes. I have been waiting for @Dirtlawyer1: to get back to us on his view of redlinks (above), although he does make the point above that the objection is nav boxes that have mostly redlinks, which I take to mean more redlinks than bluelinks in the body of the nav box. @The Banner: has suggested that a box should have at least three bluelinks in the body including aircraft types, people, etc (but not the titular company link or generic links) and Mojoworker has suggested three total bluelinks as a minimum (two aircraft types, plus the manufacturer). I need to then use MilborneOne's link above and figure out how many nav boxes we are talking about that have a majority of redlinks or fewer than three body links so we have some idea of the scope. That may be enough to start the conversation at that point. Am I missing anything here or have I got anyone's ideas wrong? - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To my opinion and taking the present template under discussion as example, only the eight mentioned planes are relevant links. Not the manufacturer (Ibis Aircraft) and not the generic type (fixed wing aircraft). The Banner talk 12:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. That was my understanding of your position on this. - Ahunt (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the point that I hope won't be lost in the rhetoric: What's best for the reader? And doing more content building instead of these endless discussions is part of that. AHunt, the point that I'm waiting for your detractors to address is, when is a navbox something more than merely a navbox? And when does stylistic consistency override counting links? I'll note that "Provides a consistent look and navigation system for related articles" is the first thing listed at WP:NAVBOX#Advantages, which is a WP Guideline. Mojoworker (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking that will be a central point in the discussion at WikiProject Aircraft. There is also the point that there doesn't seem to be any current policy or guideline on the use of red vs blue links in a nav box. WP:NAVBOX (an editing guideline) specifically allows red links, while WP:EXISTING (also an editing guideline) says "Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles." In the case of the aircraft types here they are very likely to be made into articles as soon as refs are found. As was pointed out we don't want to be different from the rest of English Wikipedia, so I think it is critical to understand the policies and not just make up a specific number of red or blue links that will only apply to WikiProject Aircraft nav boxes and not any others. - Ahunt (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: After a day at the library digging into Janes, I have created more articles in this series. The template under discussion here now has eight aircraft type bluelinks, in additional to the general type link and the manufacturer. I think this meets everyone's standards to be "kept", now. - Ahunt (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am positively amazed by this discussion. Not only seems the already stated concerns about navigation templates and their number of links finally takes hold, the template under discussion itself made a tremendous growth. I hope this discussion will be the start of great things to come.
    • Request speedy close as keep, as nominator - my concerns have been taken care of. The Banner talk 12:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should note that expanding this nav box took a great effort, since none of the refs needed to create the five new articles were available on-line. It was a 24 km trip by bus, twice, to my central library to get all the required information from reference books that cannot be checked out and taken home. This is pretty typical of where we are at in finishing the last 10,000 or so aircraft type articles. It will take a great effort and some time to accomplish, but it will improve Wikipedia greatly through the effort. - Ahunt (talk) 12:59, 6 May 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 aviation[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox aviation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As per my second point below. WP:AVIATION doesn't get to create their own thumbnail style. Alakzi (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why they cant, it is used to produce a consistent style across aviation articles. Have you a suggestion as a alternate that can be used in the 379 articles that uses this? MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A thumbnail. In-between two-link navboxes and infoboxes that contain nothing but an image, I believe the Aviation WikiProject has an unhealthy obsession with "consistency". Its articles do not exist in void; consistency with the project at large takes precedence - see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Alakzi (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cant see anything wrong with consistency is that not why we use infoboxes, would you rather all articles were "individual"? So what do you suggest to bring the rogue project into line, how can it show an image and article title? MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In what way would articles be "individual" if they were to use regular thumbnails? There doesn't need to be a title on top of the image. Alakzi (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose dont find the I dont like it and the I dont like the way the project does stuff a valid reason. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm jovial to see my argument reduced to "I don't like it". Per the MOS, "an infobox template . . . summarizes key features of the page's subject. . . . When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article." The infobox isn't a different frame style for thumbnails. Alakzi (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alakzi. The pupose of an infobox is "to summarize key facts that appear in the article" (MOS:INFOBOX), but this doesn't summarise anything, it's just an image, a caption and an unnecessary heading, consequently it's redundant to a simple thumbnail. The template itself is more or less a duplicate of {{Infobox image}} and has nothing at all to do with aviation. PC78 (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This infobox is not doing what an infobox is supposed to do. And you get the idea that WP:AVIATION is not a part of Wikipedia with their templates in conflict with a lot of policies and guidelines. The Banner talk 21:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This box has been used for many years on hundreds of articles as a result of WikiProject consensus. Nominator has not specified any policy that this offends, other than he doesn't like it. - Ahunt (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have cited both the MoS and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. If you repeat this fabrication, I will take serious issue. I also urge you to review WP:TFD#REASONS. Finally, what is "it's been used for many years" supposed to prove? Alakzi (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just an image with a title. A captioned image works better, especially now that we have Media Viewer. Fleet Command (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no difference between the content of this template and {{Infobox image}}. However just the name difference, and its use, is enough to justify this. This is a template that has the (difficult to achieve or recreate) advantage of being deployed across the relevant aviation articles. That's a valuable piece of software real estate, even if not being exploited at present.
    If we replace this specific template with the general template, that conveys no advantage. It is literally pointless. What benefit does it convey? However it does then throw away the advantage of already having a large set of themed articles already tagged with a specific template. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A difference of no more than the template name is very much a reason to redirect, if not delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you're going to comment specifically to my !vote, at least read it first. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the points made by Alakzi. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alakzi. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 03:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This infobox is useful when is unclear which other aviation-related infobox would be better suited. And is bettr than no infobox at all. Regards, DPdH (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DPdH: How is it better? Articles are not required to have infoboxes. Infoboxes are for summarizing information in the article—this is just a table with a picture in it. There's no information in it. I'm not sure why this discussion has more oppose votes than {{Infobox image}}'s, since they're pretty much exactly the same thing. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 12:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Replace – While I agree that this template should be replaced with {{Infobox aircraft begin}} it's not going to be as simple as a redirect. I'll echo what I said at the concurrent {{Infobox image}} deletion discussion: I'd be OK with deletion - but only after every instance has been replaced with an equivalent thematic infobox. Mojoworker (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just worked up a version in the sandbox at {{Infobox aviation/sandbox}} which replaces the existing version and instead utilizes {{Infobox aircraft begin}}. It renders a little larger, but at a size consistent with other infoboxes (see {{Infobox aviation/testcases}}). Perhaps an easy solution would be to go with the sandbox version for now in order to preserve the context of all usages of the current template – perhaps with the understanding that it will be replaced (and the other relevant modules currently available for the modular Infobox aircraft added) as soon as practicable. I'd volunteer to assist with this as time permits. Mojoworker (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Infoboxes are not necessary; this particular example does nothing substantially more elaborate than normal Wikipedia image syntax, just with different formatting from the rest of the site. Relentlessly (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after replacing with a simple thumbnail image, or actual infobox. Frietjes (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after replacing with a simple thumbnail image, or actual infobox (if appropriate). Consistency with the project at large should take precedence (e.g. Police aviation having a picture-only-infobox is inconsistent with Mounted police which does not). DexDor (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Althought I've used this template in a number of articles, I'm afraid the template is just providing an image with a title. This can be replaced with a plain image or with another template.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This template does nothing that a normal thumbnail cannot do (nothing apart from replicating the article title above the picture, which looks odd, unless it's part of a proper infobox). It makes articles about aviation look like the odd ones out, compared for example with articles about vessels, trains, or road vehicles (or the Police example cited by user DexDor). --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Template:Infobox image ; if this is kept, it needs to be renamed, since this clearly isn't specialized for aviation, it can be used as a general use infobox. Template:Infobox title and image would seem to be the way to go; if anything, Template:Infobox image should merge with this one, and the presentation of the title should be determined by parameter (ie. "name" vs "title"; or both with two titles; with that infobox's "name" parameter migrated to "image" parameter of this template) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - total non-issue. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete Conditioned only on replacing the few hundred uses with something else. Are there any articles that need to use this? Aren't there more detailed and appropriate infoboxes for airplanes, airlines, airports, etc.? If there's an article that this infobox fits that doesn't have a more appropriate infobox, I'm certainly willing to change my mind. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:58, 2 June 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:Arf-big[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Consensus herein is for retention. North America1000 09:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arf-big (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused template that gives errors (i.e. it links to the "United States national Australian rules football team", a disambiguation page, with visibly linking to it)) but has no benefit compared with template:arf The Banner talk 16:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose
  1. What errors? Fix the Template:Country data USA, and everything will be OK. (FIXED)
  2. This template is one week "old", so wait a moment!
  3. 70 sports have their own big-templates – see category
Maiō T. (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(fixed Country data USA) Maiō T. (talk) 19:54, 2 May 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:TransAdelaideRailLine[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was merge with {{Infobox rail line}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TransAdelaideRailLine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox rail line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:TransAdelaideRailLine with Template:Infobox rail line.
{{TransAdelaideRailLine}} (14 transclusions) is redundant to {{Infobox rail line}}, except for |majorstops= (which could be omitted or merged) and the specialized frequency parameters for peak, night, weekday and weekend (could be merged or omitted). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the nomination to refer to Template:Infobox rail line instead of Template:Infobox rail service. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:11, 12 May 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 rail service[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 withdrawn by nominator. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 07:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox rail service (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox rail line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox rail service with Template:Infobox rail line.
These two templates share many parameters (since the former was based on the latter) and are largely but not entirely redundant to each other. Some articles, such as those of some metro/subway/rapid transit lines, could benefit from using the parameters/features of both infoboxes. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the templates shouldn't really be merged, so withdraw nomination. There are, however, definitely issues with the templates (particularly {{Infobox rail service}}) which Mackensen has brought up, and those may need to be looked at. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. I've found needing parameters from both when replacing the Sydney infobox. It's extremely common that we've got one article for both the line and the service. Alakzi (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. They're not describing the same thing. A rail line is a piece of physical infrastructure which might host one or more services. That there's overlap within some metro transit lines doesn't mean we should discard the differences between the two templates. In many other articles there is not a one-to-one relationship between a line and a service. This is not the way to resolve the issue you're having. Mackensen (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would you suggest? Alakzi (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Withdraw this nomination (I realize you didn't open it) and have an actual discussion, perhaps at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains? Discussing the line and the services on it in a one-to-one scenario isn't a new problem, but blurring the distinction between the two isn't helpful. Mackensen (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is an actual discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then presumably at some point you or another person favoring a merge will draw up a concrete proposal for what this merged template will look like. Eyeballing the parameter list there isn't all that much meaningful overlap. Worse, some parameters mean different things in different contexts. For a rail line, speed would mean the maximum authorized speed on the track (if used correctly). For a service, speed would be the maximum speed of that service. The physical details of the line don't make sense for a service which traverses many of them. The rolling stock characteristics of a service are irrelevant to a line which hosts many services. How would these merge? What is your proposal? Mackensen (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • We can easily have two parameter, say |line_speed= and |train speed=, if that's a concern. Having the same parameter name mean different things in two templates is extremely dumb. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not the same thing at all. A rail line is the track and its stations, over which pass several different services, which may vary not just by time of day but also from one year to another. A rail service is a train which connects certain places (which might not all be on the same line) and runs at particular times, such as the 20:01 Banbury to Paddington (all stations via Didcot except Radley, Culham, Appleford, Southall, Hanwell, West Ealing and Acton Main Line) which runs partly on the Cherwell Valley Line and partly on the Great Western Main Line. Some rail services have names, like Flying Scotsman, Orient Express or City of San Francisco, and for these we usually have articles. Over the years, rail services may alter their routes, or their termini, and in some cases may be completely divorced from long stretches of their original route - the Pines Express, for instance, which has had two completely different routes between Birmingham (New Street) and Bournemouth (West). --Redrose64 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, we understand all of that. The question is what do we do where the infrastructure and the service cannot be parted. This is extremely common with rapid transit. As is, {{Infobox rail service}} contains a number of technical parameters which pertain to the line, and not the service. Another solution might be to purge {{Infobox rail service}} of all line-specific parameters and make it embeddable (or the other way around). Alakzi (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further to Alakzi's replay, the issue is not whether lines and services are very similar; but whether the templates are. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are somewhat similar, but the differences are much more important than the similarities. As I indicated in a different thread, we should probably work to make them more different to avoid confusion. This isn't the place to do so. Mackensen (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Er, yes it is. And others commenting here have shown that the two templates have very similar lists of properties. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • No doubt. That in no way provides a justification for a merge. A proper place to discuss this would be on the templates talk pages, where we can assess whether some properties are inappropriate and should be removed. The central issue, which you've not addressed, is that physical infrastructure and a temporal routing are conceptually and categorically different, and should not be handled by the same template, regardless of the apparent overlap. That there are use cases where the two overlap does not change the fact that there are many which do not. A line can host many services. A service can run on many lines. A single template probably can't capture both, which is why I and others don't favor a merge. Mackensen (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is the proper place for such a discussion. We can't hold it simultaneously, on two templates' talk pages. The "conceptual" issue has already been addressed by Alakzi. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per Redrose64. A rail service and the rail line(s) ut runs upon are not the same. Mjroots (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mjroots, Redrose64, and Mackensen: The templates share around half of their parameters, and would share even more if the ones that were added to {{Infobox rail line}} after {{Infobox rail service}} was split from it were added to {{Infobox rail service}} as well. {{Infobox rail line}}, apart from perhaps a few parameters which aren't listed in the documentation for some reason, has no parameters that don't fit into {{Infobox rail service}}. It is true that they are not the same thing, but they are very similar. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 15:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and they should probably become more dissimilar, not less. Mackensen (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • 👍 Like Mjroots (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please offer actual input. This is not Facebook. An issue has been identified; a proposed solution rejected. Now what? Alakzi (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mackensen: How do you propose the templates become more dissimilar, and how would this improve the templates? Since their splitting the only way they've become more dissimilar is that parameters and display changes which could have been added to both were only added to one of them. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • They need to become more dissimilar because editors get confused on the distinction between a line and a service, and that's not a good thing. Service should lose some technical parameters like electrification and gauge. Line should lose at the very least the ridership options, and possibly termini and stations. Also either routenumber or linenumber. Makes no sense to have both. Mackensen (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Mackensen: A service could benefit from having electrification (if some trains on the line are electrified but those of the service aren't) and possibly gauge (particularly if the line has dual gauge). In any case, would it be a good idea, in your opinion, to create a third {{Infobox rail line–service}} for those articles which need both templates' parameters (if they don't get merged)? Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • A service isn't electrified; the line is. Some services are electrified in portions (such as Amtrak's Vermonter). I don't know that capturing that detail in a service infobox is all that useful. I think such a infobox as you propose would be duplicative of both templates and unwieldy. I think the ultimate solution is making either service or line embeddable in the other, though it would take considerable restructuring. Mackensen (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible oppose. Some similarity in parameters is insufficient to merge infobox templates things that are quite distinct. Just looking at a list of a parameters does nothing to inform whether a merge is appropriate, and should never be the basis of a merge proposal. oknazevad (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Oknazevad: The point of the merge proposal is that the templates are very similar and there are various reasons to merge similar templates (such as consistency and not having to make the same changes on multiple templates). Aside from the "On-board services" section in {{Infobox rail service}}, which of the parameters in each template could not possibly be applied to the other? Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. At the risk of belaboring a point, nominators approached this discussion with a solution and not a problem. The problem is how to adequately capture details of a line and service when the two overlap one-to-one in a single-article, usually in a metro setting. Blurring the distinction between a line and a service by merging these two templates might solve the issue in that use case, but raises problems for all the other articles which do not overlap one-to-one. However, this discussion is oriented around the idea of a merge, so we're going to have that discussion instead. Why this didn't start at Template talk:Infobox rail service or Template talk:Infobox rail line is unclear to me. The latter is a pretty active talk page. It's still not clear after all this discussion which parameters are wanted in which template, or on which articles. Mackensen (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem identified - and identified clearly - by the nominator (singular) is that the two templates "share many parameters and are largely... redundant to each other". The reasons why this is a problem are explained in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. The problem is not simply "how to adequately capture details of a line and service when the two overlap one-to-one in a single-article". And you have provided no evidence of "problems for all the other articles which do not overlap one-to-one" that would be caused by the proposed merge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, that is what the nominator wrote. I'm still waiting to find out how these templates are largely redundant and what parameters they share (note that Jc86035 has acknowledged that On-board services could not possibly be applied to a line). I'm also waiting to learn why it's a good idea to commingle the concept of a line and a service. Despite your claims I and others have raised serious problems with the idea as a concept. Mackensen (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per RedRose 64 reasoning, there is a very distinct difference. BarossaV (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Infobox rail service is for services. Infobox rail line is for the physical lines services run on. There definitely is a distinct difference. PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 10:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was addressed above: "the issue is not whether lines and services are very similar; but whether the templates are". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A service is not the same as a line. The service is the trains. The lines are the tracks. It's like the difference between night and day. While the templates are similar, they only share half of the parameters. The other half is not shared parameters. Maybe a third template could be made to deal with the shared parameters. Epic Genius (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Mackensen, Redrose, and many others. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as many above have said, in the general case, a rail service and a rail line are not the same thing; and this decision must be made on the general case, not a specific subset of it. That is not to minimise the fact that there is a significant subset (principally, but not exclusively, on metro type systems) where the line and the service are so closely aligned that you really wouldn't want two separate articles or one article with two infoboxes (yuck!). I think we should have an MoS on what to do in this case, indicated what template to use and how, and possibly requiring some template changes. But just merging will cause more problems than it solves. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 15:33, 7 May 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 TransAdelaide station[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was merge (or rather delete Infobox TransAdelaide station). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Propose merging Template:Infobox TransAdelaide station with Template:Infobox station.
The TransAdelaide station infobox is largely redundant to {{Infobox station}}, except for frequency parameters (which could either be merged or removed) and some facilities parameters (toilets, for example); most facilities parameters were removed from Infobox station per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The "adjacent stations" section will, however, need manual conversion to {{S-line}}. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 07:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as redundant. We have decided against the inclusion of frequency and facilities parameters. Alakzi (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Drop the WP:NOTDIRECTORY stuff. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. I agree with Alakzi and Andy that the frequency and facilities parameters should not be merged. Once there's consensus to do so I can assist with the migration. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above reasons BarossaV (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. I agree that the frequency and facilities parameters do not seem particularly useful. Mamyles (talk) 21:34, 15 May 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 image[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An excuse for: (a) the creation of sometimes elaborate impromptu infoboxes, in combination with {{Navbox|child}} or otherwise (see Sonderkommando or Subsequent Nuremberg trials, or Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters); (b) the misguided notion that the top-right image(s) has/have to be enclosed within an infobox (see Polish literature or Judenrat, or FreeOTFE); (c) various image arrays that should rather be served by a purpose-built template, such as {{Multiple image}} (see Kalinjar Fort). Alakzi (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Why does this exist? For what purpose? Most navboxes have the image parameter, and those that don't probably don't need/deserve one. — Wyliepedia 03:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - but only after each instance with text content other than an image caption (and others, as appropriate) has been replaced with a thematic infobox (for example, {{Infobox organisation}} on Sonderkommando). Has 215 transclusions, BTW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment looks like a duplicate of Template:Infobox aviation. Frietjes (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • no vote but it looks good in e.g. Midnight Commander (same size as infobox), and remember if this is deleted - WP:INFOBOXUSE: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.", especially among the editors at each individual article. Christian75 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (template author). This template was created to solve a problem; now that problem is solved by Wikipedia CSS. Fleet Command (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, after replacing current uses with suitable alternatives. The purpose of an infobox is "to summarize key facts that appear in the article" (MOS:INFOBOX), but this summarises nothing. Redundant to thumbnails and various multiple image templates. PC78 (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This infobox is useful when no other aviation related infobox is available; and better than no infobox at all. Regards, DPdH (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete – I'll echo what Andy/Pigsonthewing said above, but I'm taking it a step further: I'd be OK with deletion - but only after every instance (even those with just an image and caption) has been replaced with a thematic infobox or a [[File:...]] tag. Otherwise, deletion has the side effect of removing images from articles – #notgood for Wikipedia users. How does deleting this template improve the encyclopedia other than in a nebulous bureaucratic housekeeping sense? If someone volunteers to fix all 200+, I'll switch to delete. I don't think that's likely however, thus my 'keep' !vote. Mojoworker (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously - that's a given. When have we ever removed content when deleting a template, unless explicitly stated? Alakzi (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mojoworker: Of course no images will be removed from articles. You should be saying "Delete", not "Keep". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, then I'm fine with deletion, but I still agree with Andy that a thematic infobox should be used as replacement where possible. Who typically ends up doing the grunt work – the closing admin? Mojoworker (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, redundant to {{infobox}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly keep [see below] - This template is the only one available for "multiple images with more than one row and one column" (please post a link if it ain't so). {{Multiple image}} template works when you have either one row or one column. This template is in use in the Slum article, and there is no other alternative template to present a WP:NPOV array of slums worldwide. Those who are suggesting deletion because in some cases a different template works better may wish to consider revising the instructions and help page for the alternative templates, so users know which is preferred and when per WP:AGF. Alternatively, if there indeed is another template that allows n1 x n2 images grid, please guide me to it. Respectfully, ThomasJessica (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can do it with a plain infobox. See example. Mojoworker (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mojoworker. Your addressed my concern. Respectfully, ThomasJessica (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could use {{Auto images}} (example). PC78 (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I find this request uninformed and misplaced. The cocky and arrogant rationale makes no mention of the prolonged conflict regarding the use of Template:Infobox with relevant comments available at Template talk going as far back as April 2014 or the ongoing User:Pigsonthewing/Direct calls to Infobox action project. Major proponent of removing Template:Infobox from all articles (!), Wikipedia administrator Nikkimaria voluntarily surrendered her admin bit on 23 July 2014. I don't even mention the fact that the examples given above are mostly mine, and yet, I was not informed about this request in any way. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Also, {{Multiple image}} is a badly designed template that does not display any image at all (!) in popup windows. Popup windows are an excellent tool to learn instantly where the article lead image stands at, without having to go there. Poeticbent talk 06:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find this request uninformed and misplaced. Where should it have been placed, if not at templates for discussion? The cocky and arrogant rationale ... No cockiness or arrogance intended. ... the prolonged conflict ... Of course. Why wouldn't there be a prolonged conflict? This is Wikipedia, after all. I was not informed about this request in any way. I've done all that is required of me; I'm not going to trawl through each article's history to discover who put the box there. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I've identified three issues with the infobox's usage. Other editors have raised other valid points, such as redundancy. Also, {{Multiple image}} is a badly designed template ... WP:SOFIXIT. Alakzi (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're not listening. Template:Infobox was being actively removed from articles last year resulting in a mess from which the only escape was Template:Infobox image proposed as a viable alternative. You joined Wikipedia later that year, which is a no excuse for being totally unaware of relevant discussions. Next time, please look at template histories and talk pages before you begin. I said, your request is misplaced, because you did not pick up on any threads, which should have been your first choice. I'm not going to SOFIXIT anything. Please stop engaging in bloated bureaucratic make-work projects. Poeticbent talk 17:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Until this proposal is resolved – one way or the other – Template:Infobox image (according to guidelines) remains a perfectly good way to place a picture at the top right-hand corner of the article, with the actual name of the article featured in bold type. This is exactly what this template was designed for, i.e. to augment the generic Template:Infobox which has been under attack. The [[File:]] syntax has no article title in it. It is not the same as an Infobox. The use of [[File:]] is good for inline illustrations because it makes the same frame as the other, but without the title parameter in existence. Please look at the complete list of infoboxes at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes. There is a hundred of them there. However, none of them cover the subject of Wolfsangel, which you targeted only because it was edited by me. Wolfsangel (German: wolf trap) is many things ... none of the existing Template:Infobox alternatives apply. Most importantly, I'd like to strongly encourage you to follow the behavioral guidelines, please. Poeticbent talk 11:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Er, AFAICT, I've never edited that article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the above comment was not for you, but for User:Alakzi who already responded by self-reverting. Please look at Wolfsangel article history. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 21:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Template:Infobox Aviation ; they're almost the same, so having parameters for both above box titles and top of box titles would handle all cases (name= and title= ) and can give two titles if desired. The name of this template is bad, since it is not an infobox for image articles. Suggest Template: Infobox title and image which has no corresponding realworld topic "title and image" so clearly representing what it is. This infobox's "name" parameter should be migrated to "image" to indicate the filename -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with the above contribution "This template is the only one available for 'multiple images with more than one row and one column'" It's as simple as that...SethWhales talk 06:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that was shown not to be the case, and the user who made that comment later retracted their !vote. There are several options available for this usage. PC78 (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are no (quote-unquote) "several options" available for this usage. Template:Infobox has a fixed width which is a problem with smaller files, Template:Multiple image is useless with popups. No more alternatives other than stripped-down [[File:]] syntax exist for image placement without calling it something else. Poeticbent talk 02:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Poeticbent, can you please clarify what you mean with {{Multiple image}} being "useless with popups"? I have the 'Navigation popus' account preference selected and I get pop-ups from {{Multiple image}}s normally, just like from any other picture, for example here. Other than that, I see little or no point in keeping {{Infobox image}}, but will express my vote later. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for asking, Deeday-UK. This is not what I meant, sorry for the mental foreshortening. I was talking about using {{Multiple image}} for the article lead image, similar to Template:Infobox because that is what this discussion is about. On several occasions I was forced to remove {{Multiple image}} from the top right-hand corner of my article and/or replace it with either the {{Infobox}} or [[File:]] in order to have my 'Navigation popus' account preferences (similar to yours) display image with title of the article. Please examine these two WP:DYK submissions for yourself, dif and dif. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 13:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: All dedicated infoboxes are offshoots of Template:Infobox, with no exception. What is "unnecessary" in article layout is a judgement call based on individual personal preferences. Poeticbent talk 16:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Reply to above) What about {{Auto images}}, {{Image array}}, {{Photomontage}}? Several options, like I said. {{Infobox image}} uses {{Infobox}}, so how can the latter have a "fixed width problem"? PC78 (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how these particular templates with no extended syntax offered by {{Infobox}} (allowing for many 'headers' and 'labels'), are any better than {{Infobox image}}. Template {{Image array}} for example could also be nominated here as inferior to template {{Auto images}}. Meanwhile, {{Infobox}} requires a full [[File:]] syntax, which is a syntax inside the infobox syntax. {{Infobox image}} on the other hand does not have that. It asks only for size in px. Poeticbent talk 20:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Similarly to {{Infobox aviation}}, I can't see how framing the picture in the lead and duplicating the article title above it can improve any article. That's not an infobox, it's a framed thumbnail. If this is all {{Infobox image}} does, then it really serves no purpose. Wolfsangel is a great example of a pseudo-infobox forced upon an article that does not require one (and I'm struggling to find other articles about heraldic charges that have any infobox). Multiple images in the lead are also unnecessary, unless the article is about a multitude of subjects, like Irish people, for example (which uses a dedicated infobox anyway): why should the photos in Garden of the Righteous be all clustered in a pseudo-infobox, instead of placed in the article body like for any other article? Delete. Especially per point b) in the original proposal. --Deeday-UK (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I reckon if the template was deleted, then a bot should automatically change the deleted template to the desired template. The Internet Explorer 10 article uses it. Change this template. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 09:13, 6 June 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_May_2&oldid=1091448800"