Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 March 28

March 28

Template:Duplicate

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).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Db-f1. And delete Template:Dupe; no consensus on deleting Template:Duplicate Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Duplicate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Db-f1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Duplicate with Template:Db-f1.
See WP:AN#Category:Duplicate Wikipedia files Jonteemil (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support. As one of the few admins who process duplicate files, I find that editors frequently default to {{Db-f1}}, regardless of whether the file is actually orphaned or not. Aside from causing a ton of confusion, there's little value in separate templates. -FASTILY 06:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment if possible, {{duplicate}} and {{dupe}} should be deleted and not remain as redirects, since it causes undue grief with the articlespace template {{duplication}} -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• I think a redirect is good for the ones who might accidently still use {{duplicate}} after the merge, if it goes through.Jonteemil (talk)|

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).

Template:Noselect

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Noselect (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Rehman 14:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment is the CSS still valid? MSIE is dead, moz has undergone architectural changes (Quantum), and Webkit forked to Chrome -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

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).

Template:Stock market crashes

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Stock market crashes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Financial crises (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Stock market crashes with Template:Financial crises.
While perhaps making actual stock market crash entries within the Financial crises template bold, for instance. Or some other legend, as explained in the below bar of the the template (example: "Entries in bold = stock market crashes"). PPEMES (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Support I had already moved all of the entries in the stock market crashes template into the Financial crises template, and the latter template is the one that should be retained (since it is the broader template). I do not believe bolded lettering within the template specifically for stock market crashes would be appropriate since they are not the only type of financial crisis. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Good. But perhaps they should have some kind of indicator such as "EventEntry^" or something, where "^ = stock market crashes" is indicated as legend below? PPEMES (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@PPEMES: I'm not sure I follow. Could you show me a different navbox template as an example? -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

See for instance here: Template:Latin Church footer. Please note the "* = also Great Doctors". PPEMES (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@PPEMES: Reviewed the example; I'm not persuaded that the additional lettering is necessary, but still agree that the templates should be merged. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Depending on how significantly different "financial crises" and "stock market crashes" are, I would likely keep them as separate navboxes. However, I suppose all stock market crashes are types of financial crises, though I still wonder if there is a substantial group of people would be interested on specifically only stock market crashes and not simply financial crises in general. It seems that financial crises applies to all drops in financial value, including of stock markets. However, some people might want to see the specific form of financial crisis in the stock market side of economy. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

There are lots of templates around with smaller topics embedded in larger topics like that. With a legend at the bottom row of the template, it shouldn't be an issue. PPEMES (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Qwertyxp2000: "Financial crisis" is the broader category. What I think you mean by "financial crisis" is "banking panic", which is just a different category than a stock market crash. They can overlap and often do, but not necessarily. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose one template relates to financial crisis. One relates to the stock market. These are related but I am not convinced merging these templates share enough in common to deserve a merge. Some stock market crashes are not financial crisis and visa-versa. IMO there is not much point to having an even larger template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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).

Template:Ainur

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).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Middle-earth. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Ainur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Middle-earth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Ainur with Template:Middle-earth.
Continuing on from the TfDs of Middle-earth Dwarves, Elves, and Races. 7 out of the 12 links are already in the template. For the same reasons given in the previous discussions, this will lead to better and easier navigation between related articles and less clutter of navigation templates. Gonnym (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, reinstate earlier version including redirects to sections, [1] which was useful for navigation and overview. The edit summary said "removing redirects" but articles about possible Maiar were also removed without disclosure. By all means italicise the redirects in the template. – Fayenatic London 10:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Navigation templates aren't used for redirects, especially when all of them redirect to the same article. You really think 15 links to Vala (Middle-earth) is useful? Can you explain how exactly navigation would be helpful? Also, seeing as how you are referring to @Izno's edit and not mine, I completely agree with his and oppose any restoration. --Gonnym (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:NAV more or less makes it clear that navboxes are for navigation between articles, not redirects and not non-articles. Navigating between redirects almost always inspires duplicating a table of contents somewhere and navigating between non-articles (as in, unlinked articles) is a flat contradiction. WP:NAVBOX, the actual guideline on the matter, has WP:BIDIRECTIONAL among others, so that usually knocks the same out. --Izno (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Merge to an appropriate larger navbox. I think Template:Middle-earth may need to be split (probably along fictional/non-fictional lines) at some point unless deletions of fictional topics continue, but that's not a blocker for this discussion. --Izno (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. PPEMES (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support, this very small template (even with doubtful items included) will easily fit in the larger template, and in fact will assist navigation by being included. Further, we can avoid giving "doubtful" labels in the larger context. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• (belated reply to Gonnym) I accept that the links for named Valar added little; nevertheless the list of Valar was useful since it was a complete list, and easier to view than the full table. (I was not aware of the guidance at WP:EXISTING; it seems regrettable to me that unlinked text should be restricted to musical ensembles, and Ainulindale hardly counts. ) The list of Maiar was useful because it included links to sections.
• I have reinstated Radagast, removed in error as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radagast was closed as "Keep"; the link for Wizards, which is a section within a different article; and the two comparable powerful spirits whose origin & nature are left uncertain in the legendarium, and were therefore included in the navbox as "Possible Ainur". – Fayenatic London 21:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

We should not have "possibles" or "doubtfuls" in any template. There is no good evidence that those two were meant by Tolkien to be Ainur, and they don't even begin to fit in with the rest of the Valar and Maiar. It's simply not where templates should be going. But even with them the template is small and basically pointless: navigation will be easier with less jumping between templates. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Maiar are a very mixed bunch, and the article Tom Bombadil includes citations for opinions that he and Goldberry could be among them. – Fayenatic London

• OK, changing my !vote to support. It's clear that the older form (which I found useful) may not be reinstated under current guidance, and I agree that merging will be better than the current form. – Fayenatic London 22:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

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).

Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Europe medical cases

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Europe medical cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/International_medical_cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Europe medical cases with Template:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_data/International_medical_cases.
Incorrectly formatted merge proposed by another user: correcting nom. with no opinion UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. People seem to be keeping the global table template more up-to-date than the Europe one, and have done a reasonable split of Europe into geographical sub-regions. However, including the Europe part in the Europe prose article would still be nice, even though it's horizontally quite large now. In fact, a reasonable case could be made for splitting the Europe template, because keeping it up-to-date is becoming heavy work as we seem to be entering an exponential growth phase in Europe (with the main exception being Poland, which is miraculously SARS-CoV-2-free, apart from suspected cases). An ideal solution would be if the "global" table included continental or sub-continental table components, in a way that continental or sub-continental tables could be used as templates without having to show the full global one. I suspect that this could be risky unless the method of doing this forces editors at any of the "sub" levels from making edits that mess up the structure of the combined super- or super-super-table. Boud (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment on comment I suspect such a template would indeed be easy to mess up and hard to maintain, and I don't even know how to start creating that without making the existing international template a lot more complicated... Renerpho (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Having a table for Europe that can be used in the article about cases in Europe is useful. Please help keep it up to date! Renerpho (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• I see a case for splitting out the international template by continent because of the sheer amount of data included and the lack of readability. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Please revert to the Rate Comparisons with Syncing the start date from the first 500 or 100 cases. This metric offers much more insight for comparing the ongoing outbreak between the different regions than Syncing the start date till the first 100 or 500 cases which offers a truncated view not necessaily indicative of the further development of the initial outbreak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.244.214.142 (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Retire I think that changing the name - at least internally without a formal name change - to something like "in January and February 2020" and effectively freezing it as a resource to remain available for later studies for people (e.g. epidemiologists) who might find it useful. Boud (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • No respectable epidemiologist is going to use a table in Wikipedia which can be edited by anyone as a source for real research. --Gonnym (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support. PPEMES (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Merge. WT79 The Engineer (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Changes to template components should be discussed at the template's talk page, not here. Nyttend (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

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).

Template:Infobox peer

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).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Infobox noble. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox peer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox noble (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox peer with Template:Infobox noble.
You wouldn't awefully mind a combined infobox for the total scope, would you? PPEMES (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. A peer is not the same as a noble. Nobles are aristocrats, peers are not necessarily so. So noble is a wholly incorrect title. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: I haven't seen any article containing with "peer" in its name that doesn't speak of it in terms of a noble or aristocratic context. If you insist, however, the name for the merged template could be something like "infobox aristocrate". PPEMES (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Everyone in the House of Lords is a peer, but only 92 of them are nobles. They are all peers of the realm, but the mass majority are not aristocrats. Raj Bagri, Baron Bagri is a peer. He is not, however, an aristocrat. His article uses infobox_peerage. A noble and a peer are not the same thing, which is why I opposed this merge. Likewise, there are members of the nobility who are not peers. Please do not suggest merges if you don't understand the basic principles of the infoboxes at hand. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Peerages in the United Kingdom says "composed of various noble ranks". Life peer says "always created at the rank of baron". Baron says "a rank of nobility". In Raj Bagri, Baron Bagri, how is "under the title Baron Bagri" outside the scope of aristocracy to you? PPEMES (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that a technical distinction existing between peer and noble would be enough to merit two separate templates. The question should be whether the templates are functionally distinct, not whether the concepts are. If any of the information the peer template provides would be equally relevant for a noble, and vice versa, the templates should be merged. Someone the Person (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. ——联合果君 (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Merge I feel there are too many infoboxes Johannes Schade (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:INFOCOL Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 13:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Merge per Andy's argument below—I certainly can't. buidhe 05:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. British peers hold various titles of nobility, whether hereditary or not. Dimadick (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Parameters (peer v. noble)

Here is a comparison of the parameters in the two templates:

Parameter	Infobox peer	Infobox noble
1
2
abovestyle
alt
birth_date
birth_name birthname
birth_place
body_discovered
burial_date
burial_place
caption
christening_date
christening_place
CoA
date of burial
date of christening
death_cause
death_date
death_place
father
footnotes
full name
heir
heir-type
honorific prefix honorific_prefix
honorific suffix honorific_suffix
honorific-prefix
honorific-suffix
house-type
image
image_size imagesize
issue
issue-link
issue-pipe
known
known_for
locality
memorials
misc
module
more
mother
name
nationality
native_name
native_name_lang
networth
noble family
occupation
offices
other_names
other_titles
parents
place of burial
place of christening
post-nominals
pre-nominals
pre-type
preceded by preceded_by
predecessor
previous
reign
reign-type
religion
residence
resting_place
resting_place_coordinates
signature
spouse
spouse-type
styles
suc-type
succeeded by succeeded_by
succession
successor
tenure
title
titles
url
wars_and_battles
website
years_active

Can anyone offer an argument why any parameter - let alone a significant number of parameters - marked with a cross for "no" belong to one class of subject, and not the other? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

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).

Template:Nature reserves of Estonia

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Nature reserves of Estonia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Reason for deleting: Template_talk:Nature_reserves_of_Estonia#Deleting. Estopedist1 (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Reluctant. Is that really enough arguments for deleting it? PPEMES (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Comment this is a navigational template, and is intended to assist editors in navigating from one article to another, related one. It is not the job of nav templates to present an exhaustive list; that is the purpose of List of protected areas of Estonia. The contents of this template are overwhelmingly redlinks (and have been so since 2007), and it completely fails its purpose of navigation. Readers wishing to browse related articles would be much better served by a "See also" link to the list article (as is already the case for many of them). --RexxS (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

  I've now removed the 121 red links, leaving 46 articles in the navbox. That is much more manageable and closer to the purpose of navigational templates. That should give everyone a better idea of what the template should look like for the purposes of this discussion (before somebody reverts it). --RexxS (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Nav templates have different use than lists. The question is, should it be devided to 15 Estonian counties or rather list alphabetically all reserves. How many links there are? I'm sure there's not too much. Red links or not updated sure isn't a reason to delete. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

  if kept, then arise the question why we haven't "template:Estonian lakes" (we have list of lakes of Estonia), or "template:Estonian rivers" (we have list of rivers of Estonia) etc--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  @PPEMES, RexxS, and Pelmeen10: forgot pinging--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  Please observe MOS:INDENTMIX - it is required for accessibility.

  The reason we don't have the templates corresponding to the list articles is probably that the list articles are doing the job of the proposed navigational templates already, by being in See also sections. Either that or nobody has got around to creating them yet.

  In answer to the question "should it be devided to 15 Estonian counties or rather list alphabetically all reserves" is given by WP:NAVBOX:

  The article links in a navigation template should be grouped into clusters, by topic, or by era, etc. Alphabetical ordering does not provide any additional value to a category containing the same article links.

  I agree that not being updated is not a reason to delete, but the purpose of redlinks is to suggest possible articles, not for navigation. A navbox full of redlinks that nobody is every going to turn into articles would be deleted as serving no purpose. --RexxS (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  @RexxS: good links to guidelines. I see we already have {{Islands of Estonia}} and List of islands of Estonia. Structures are different. The template should have 2355 islands, but there is some kind of selection--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

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).

Template:Infobox gunpowder plotter

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 April 5. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox_gunpowder_plotter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox_criminal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

Template:Infobox pretender

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus to merge, but there may be consensus to delete the pretender infobox. Please feel free to start a new discussion if you would like to see the pretender box deleted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox pretender (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox royalty (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox pretender with Template:Infobox royalty.
Argubaly a minority if any royalties could be considered universally recognised. Would it be fair to attempt to create a one single template that could handle varying degrees of recognition of titles in pretense? PPEMES (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. The actual royals should just use the royalty infobox. The non-royals can just use infobox person like everyone else. I see no good reason for this infobox at all, and would therefore support deletion as it is unnecessary and POV. DrKay (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delete the "pretender" infobox (which has just 32 transclusions), and replace with infobox person, per DrKay, otherwise merge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Isn't that in fact by consequence a merge, but then on a case by case evaluate whether infobox royalty really does apply? PPEMES (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

+1. Delete the "pretender" infobox, and replace with infobox person. --Abatishchev (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep both infoboxes separate. I think both are helpful to readers and useful for finding quick information. Pretenders occupy a different role when it comes to royalty, and the regular infobox does not fit their role. --Kbabej (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Why would a merged template not be "helpful to readers and useful for finding quick information"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Merging, With Reservation: I agree that "pretenders" shouldn't be treated the same as legitimate rulers because they did not have the same impact, generally speaking, on the legal, social, or military history of their countries. But the line between pretender and legitimate ruler can often be very thin. How do we differentiate between the two, generally speaking? RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose.——联合果君 (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Infobox pretender and replace with Infobox person. Infobox pretender is generally a useless infobox since it lumps former royals and dubious individuals like Frédéric Luz or like Jeremiah Heaton of the Kingdom of North Sudan. KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - as there are no unique and vital parameters in it that cannot be covered via other avenues. It's important to note that using a royalty infobox on a pretender does not mean we are calling the pretender a real royal.. when viewed on a live page, the infobox will appear just as an infobox - it is the parameters that matter. The fact is we should use whichever infobox fits our needs best and not pay too much attention to what it is called. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per El cid. People need to understand that a term in infobox name has no bearing to anything inside the article as long as the infobox can accommodate necessary parameters. Renata (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Merge I've never seen this infobox before and agree with others that the regular royalty infobox is enough. For instance, the regular royalty infobox is already used for all Roman usurpers, such as Silbannacus, Licinianus and Jotapianus. Supporting merging instead of deleting for the simple reason of saving the time that would otherwise be used to go through the articles that use the pretender infobox (though they are very few). Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:INFOCOL Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 13:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • This isn't a policy or guideline and you did not point specifically where this would apply to this situation. Some info-boxes are redundant to others while others aren't. The whole idea of "maintenance burden" links to a explanatory supplement to the Manual of Style accessibility for images guidelines. How would that apply here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Nobody claimed that is a policy or guideline; it is an explanation, and a perfectly good one at that; the section to which you refer says "For example, we're still adding alt text parameters to infobox templates. The more templates, the longer it takes." - note the use of For example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge per El Cid, and seeing as there is no significant difference between the two Infobox templates. Noahfgodard (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Merge - the various sections of the pretender infobox could quite easily be put in the royals infobox. Sir Magnus (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Merge (or delete) - No need for this to be it's own infobox template. This could easily be covered by either infobox person or infobox royalty depending on the situation. I think most existing uses would be better served by infobox person, but there may be cases where infobox royalty makes more sense. Kaldari (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - How many editor hours (or seconds) are really going into keeping this info-box around? I agree with the POV concerns as some pretenders are very controversial. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Replace with Infobox person agree with the above comments this is the simplest solution. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that that is probably the best solution. PPEMES (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Differences between Infoboxes

Parameter Infobox pretender Infobox royalty 2 alt birth_date birth_name birth_place birthplace burial_date burial_place caption children clan_name consort cor-type cor-type1 cor-type10 cor-type2 cor-type3 cor-type4 cor-type5 cor-type6 cor-type7 cor-type8 cor-type9 coronation coronation1 coronation10 coronation2 coronation3 coronation4 coronation5 coronation6 coronation7 coronation8 coronation9 date of burial death_date death_place deathplace dynasty embed English name era dates era name family_name father footnotes full name given_name header-color house house-type image image_size investiture issue issue-link issue-pipe issue-type king module more moretext moretext1 moretext10 moretext2 moretext3 moretext4 moretext5 moretext6 moretext7 moretext8 moretext9 mother name native_lang1 native_lang1_name1 native_lang2 native_lang2_name1 native_lang3 native_lang3_name1 native_lang4 native_lang4_name1 native_lang5 native_lang5_name1 occupation place of burial posthumous name pre-type pre-type1 pre-type10 pre-type2 pre-type3 pre-type4 pre-type5 pre-type6 pre-type7 pre-type8 pre-type9 predecessor predecessor1 predecessor10 predecessor2 predecessor3 predecessor4 predecessor5 predecessor6 predecessor7 predecessor8 predecessor9 pretend from pronunciation queen reg-type reg-type1 reg-type10 reg-type2 reg-type3 reg-type4 reg-type5 reg-type6 reg-type7 reg-type8 reg-type9 regent regent1 regent10 regent2 regent3 regent4 regent5 regent6 regent7 regent8 regent9 regnal regnal name reign reign-type reign-type1 reign-type10 reign-type2 reign-type3 reign-type4 reign-type5 reign-type6 reign-type7 reign-type8 reign-type9 reign1 reign10 reign2 reign3 reign4 reign5 reign6 reign7 reign8 reign9 relationship religion royal house signature signature_alt signature_type spouse spouse 1 spouse 2 spouse 3 spouse 4 spouse 5 spouse 6 spouse 7 spouse 8 spouse 9 spouse-type spouses spouses-type suc-type suc-type1 suc-type10 suc-type2 suc-type3 suc-type4 suc-type5 suc-type6 suc-type7 suc-type8 suc-type9 succession succession1 succession10 succession2 succession3 succession4 succession5 succession6 succession7 succession8 succession9 successor successor1 successor10 successor2 successor3 successor4 successor5 successor6 successor7 successor8 successor9 temple name throne title titletext type year It should be merged Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 04:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like there is general consensus that we don't need the pretender box, but no consensus concerning merging it vs deleting it
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep both infoboxes separate. I think both are helpful to readers and useful for finding quick information. Lightburst (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

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).

Template:Campaign medals of the Honourable East India Company

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 April 5. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Campaign_medals_of_the_Honourable_East_India_Company (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:British_campaign_medals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

Template:Infobox clergy

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox clergy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox Christian leader (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox clergy with Template:Infobox Christian leader.
Too overlapping not to merge? PPEMES (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Merge clergy into Christian leader, so as to keep the latter. Ergo Sum 17:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • And then rename as "Infobox Christian officeholder"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I would support that for the final merged template. PPEMES (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I support "Christian officeholder" over "Christian leader" as well, it would include more possible positions of various denominations I think. Nablais (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

My preference would be to keep the name "Christian leader" – it does a better job of encompassing all denominations, even those that don't technically or officially have "offices". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral - this merge has been raised in the past on some occasions. The underlying issue is that some parameters in one infobox are not explicitly applicable to the other no matter how complimentary they may seem. Furthermore, the Christian leader and clergy infoboxes are completely different set-ups; the Christian leader infobox is set apart mainly for popes or episcopal figures while the clergy infobox has been used mainly for priests and religious from the various faiths. However, that being said, I would certainly accept the merge on the basis that the clergy infobox becomes part of the Christian leader infobox (as Ergo Sum suggested) since the latter seems to be the main infobox to use for important religious figures and the layout is easy to navigate. Lord Sidious 82 (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

A majority of clergy in Christianity adhere to episcopal structures. In fact, the word "clergy" could be considered even more associated with such structures than mere "Christian leader". For those that don't, the said variables may be freely omittied. PPEMES (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

But a majority of clergy are not actually bishops, is the point. "Christian leader" came about from a merge 10 years or so ago of templates for bishops, archbishops, patriarchs and popes. That is to say, clergy with extensive jurisdiction over other clergy. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: As long as the distinctive fields are kept for different flavours and ranks (see the range of options, such as "Ambassador", "Governor" and "Judge", in the Officeholder template) why not nest both, and such others as "Latter Day Saint biography", "rebbe" and "saint", to "Religious biography"? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Proposing a merge of all the religious person infoboxes has long been on my to-do list. The biggest obstacle is that there are so many parameters that are unique to each that it would be a very large undertaking (although not impossible). The subsidiary issue is how to ensure proper emphasis/placement of parameters for each denomination while still maintaining a single template. If others are interested in creating one super-template, I'd be interested in helping out. Ergo Sum 00:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I can't see a single all-encompassing template being manageable. It would have to be something with subtemplates, along the same lines as "Officeholder". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's what I was thinking. Ergo Sum 01:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
        • @Andreas Philopater: I'm going to try out a nested infobox with sub-templates in my sandbox. Would you care to join the project, as well as anyone else you know who might be interested? Ergo Sum 18:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
          • Ergo Sum sure! I don't know anything about making templates, but I'll gladly think along. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support as long as the merge is sensitive to the differences inherent in an infobox for somebody who leads a congregation ("clergy") and somebody who oversees large numbers of clergy ("Christian leader"). In actual fact, a lot of editors already seem to use "Christian leader" as though it were the infobox template for clergy in general (and lay preachers and a variety of other Christian ministers, catechists, etc.). I have, however, put notices on the talk pages of WikiProjects that most use these templates, to see if the editors most familiar with them can offer useful input. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge: But does present christian leader template need to be improved to accommodate all types of christian leaders? for example: abbots; superiors, generals or provincials of religious orders; patriarchs, archimandrites and other clergy leadership positions of eastern churches; and even prophets and other positions of the LDS church. There are probably others.Emendment (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - while similar they have different "target audiences": clergy for local leaders or those notable for other things, whereas Christian leader is explicitly for senior leaders from churches in the apostolic succession (and therefore has detailed parameters cascading from church to diocese and for ordination). Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 23:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Gaia Octavia Agrippa But surely all those parameters could be kept in a merged infobox for bishops alongside deacons and priests, which could include new parameters for cantors, canons, deans, provosts, catechists, etc.? (Look at what "infobox officeholder" does for judges and diplomats, for example.) In actual fact the "Christian leader" infobox, while originally set up for senior clergy, is used much more widely than was originally intended (I suspect because of the vagueness of the name), even for people for whom "Infobox clergy" was designed. It makes no sense to me to have one infobox for clergy of all religions and another just for bishops in apostolic churches (especially if the latter is being used for other figures as well anyway). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Gaia Octavia Agrippa, the two infoboxes serve different purposes and should not be merged simply because they are similar. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Merge er WP:INFOCOL Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 10:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Although similar, there are clear and established differences between these infoboxes and are set up differently. There is overlap, but the nom. merge rationale does not provide any compelling reason to show that merge would be an improvement. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Gaia Octavia Agrippa. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. – ᕼᗩᑎᗪOTO (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - There are Christians leaders who aren't clergy & there are clergy of other religions who aren't Christians. Therefore, it is irrational to even propose merging these templates. 1.126.109.114 (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"Christian leaders" is a template designed for bishops, archbishops, patriarchs and popes, so the leaders for which it is intended most definitely are clergy. The clergy infobox has fields specific to Christian concepts but not to others. If it is to be used for non-Christian clergy, it is barely fit for purpose. I cannot see how a single infobox for all Christian clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) would be irrational. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Gaia Octavia Agrippa. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom and per Andreas Philopater. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. "One size fits all" is foolish economy. The two templates, as has been pointed out repeatedly, serve different functions. --Vicedomino (talk) 07:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I have yet to to see any single biographical article on individual clergy which uses "infobox clergy" as opposed to "infobox Christian leader" - the latter which covers anything related to clergy, and more. I am therefore stunned by the above discussion. PPEMES (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

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).

Template:Infobox Playboy Playmate

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox Playboy Playmate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox model (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Playboy Playmate with Template:Infobox model.
Or else at least to Template:Infobox pageant titleholder if that one is kept (see above)? PPEMES (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Merge per nom, maintaining Infobox model's status as a wrapper for {{Infobox person}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Thanks for good feedback. PPEMES (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It looks like its not an normal "infobox person" infobox. It is used to present the persons at the time they were the "Playboy Playmates". And therefore, some articles has both a normal infobox and later in the article an infobox Playboy Playmate. And measurements should not be readded to infobox model. It was removed because measurements change as time go by... Christian75 (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Christian75: Examples, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @Pigsonthewing: First link in "What links here": Pamela Anderson. Christian75 (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I asked for examples, plural, but thank you; I've fixed that one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
        • Use what links here to find them. Here is another on Jayne Mansfield. Christian75 (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This template was made for Playmates for a reason. It’s supposed to show what issues they appeared in, and who preceded/succeeded them. There are countless, hundreds of Playmates who are not notable models. ⌚️ (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose .——联合果君 (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:INFOCOL Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 01:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as the Playmates template is used specifically for Playboy Playmates..., It would IMHO be nonsensical to merge both templates into one considering both are very very different. –Davey2010^Talk 17:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Parameters (Playboy Playmate v. model)

Here is a comparison of the parameters in the two templates:

Parameter	Infobox Playboy Playmate	Infobox model
agencies
agency
alias
alma_mater
alt
birth_date
birth_name birthname
birth_place
bust
caption
child
children
citizenship
death_cause
death_date
death_place
embed
eye_color eyecolor
eye_colour eyecolour
hair_color haircolor
hair_colour haircolour
height
height_cm
height_ft
height_in
height_m
hips
honorific_prefix
honorific_suffix
image
image_size imagesize
issue
known_for
manager
module
name
nationality
native_name
native_name_lang
natural bust
nocat_wdimage
occupation
other_names
parents
partner
pmoy-preceded
pmoy-succeeded
pmoy-year
preceded
relations
relatives
residence
resting_place
spouse
subbox
succeeded
television
title
waist
website
weight
years_active yearsactive

Can anyone offer an argument why any parameter - let alone a significant number of parameters - marked with a cross for "no" belong to one class of subject, and not the other? do playmates not have coloured eyes? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

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).

Template:Infobox pageant titleholder

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox pageant titleholder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox model (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox pageant titleholder with Template:Infobox model.
Wouldn't this better be merged? PPEMES (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)p

• Merge per nom. Noting that both are already wrappers for {{Infobox person}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I really, truly think it should be left alone. Pageant title holders are not automatically models. I work on enough model articles to know by heart what goes into their infoboxes and merging them wouldn’t do any service. ⌚️ (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose They are not the same thing. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • They do not need to be the same thing; the questions is, how similar are the infoboxes, and do we need two, and if so, why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
    • The similarities end after the basic biographical details. Pageant titleholders have their respective wins but for models, it can’t simply be infobox person or else relevant career information will not show up because the parameters don’t match. And if I tried to put agency (which wouldn’t even need to be done because pageant titleholders rarely have modeling or talent agents unless they have branched out far enough) for a pageant titleholder it wouldn’t show up either. These are the things that delineate their roles. ⌚️ (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
      • But that isn't true, is it - see the table below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Merge both into {{Infobox person}} – Three of the unique params, |height=, and |hair_color=, |eye_color=, can be removed. If these attributes are even notable at all, and I am sure they are not for most models, it will suffice to state the attribute in the body of the article or even the lede if highly notable. None of these are major attributes for a majority of people. In {{Infobox person}}, |competitions= can be made into an alternate for |awards= (which is not used in either of these above templates), and |agency= can be made into an alternate for |agent= (which is in {{Infobox person}} already). By "alternate", I mean in the same way {{Infobox person}} behaves differently depending on if you use |title= or |office=.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

For a model, height, hair color, and eye color are required for the “modeling information” section of the infobox. Why does no one get this? ⌚️ (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

These parameters are usually not sourced and, more importantly, not notable. If they are notable, you should be able to add them to the body with a good source. That rarely if ever happens, even though it is a requirement that all information in the infobox should be repeated and sourced in the body. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

They usually are sourced... by what agency the person is represented by; especially when these are prone to edit warring. It doesn’t matter if the feature is notable for them (unlike actors or other entertainers where it’s not notable there at all unless it’s their most recognizable trait like Danny DeVito), it’s part of their job to have it listed what their measurements and features are. ⌚️ (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

By that logic, we should add |weight=. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. Go to any agency website: they will list their models' hair color, eye color, height, and measurements, as these are all relevant details for a model's career. For example. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 23:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Weight changes daily... ⌚️ (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

In some cases, so does hair colour. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

If someone attempted to change their hair color daily it would be destroyed and fall out. ⌚️ (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

References

• Oppose ——联合果君 (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:INFOCOL Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 01:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as both are significantly different. –Davey2010^Talk 17:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Parameters (pageant titleholder v. model)

Here is a comparison of the parameters in the two templates:

Parameter	Infobox pageant titleholder	Infobox model
agencies
agency
alias
alma mater alma_mater
alt
birth_date
birth_name birthname
birth_place
caption
child
children
citizenship
competitions
death_cause
death_date
death_place
domestic partner domestic_partner
education
eye_color eyecolor
eye_colour eyecolour
films
hair_color haircolor
hair_colour haircolour
height
height_cm
height_ft
height_in
height_m
home_town hometown
homepage
honorific_prefix
honorific_suffix
image
image_size imagesize
known_for
manager
module
name
nationalcompetition
nationality
native_name
native_name_lang
nocat_wdimage
occupation
other_names
parents
partner
photo
relations
relatives
residence
resting_place
signature
signature_alt
signature_size
spouse
television
title
website
years active years_active yearsactive

Can anyone offer an argument why any parameter - let alone a significant number of parameters - marked with a cross for "no" belong to one class of subject, and not the other? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Whether the data fields are similar should not be the only criteria. Simplifying maintenance is what wrappers are for and this template is a wrapper for Infobox person. This is a template for a competition winner, not for an occupation such as model. This is also an area of women's popular culture, and like much women's interests poorly covered in Wikipedia. Entering one's daughters in beauty pagaents is a focus in many rural and southern communities in the United States, from Diaper Princess, to dressing grade school children up like movie stars, to the multiple pageants for teenage girls. These Bible Belt mothers conceive very traditional roles for their daughters - becoming good wives and mothers. Having them become models, much less Playboy centerfolds, is not part of the plan so the model template is not an appropriate target. There are 85 templates in Category:Sportsperson infobox templates with no danger of merging any of them to non-competition occupations. In fairness to female areas of interest lets leave this one alone. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

References

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).

Template:Infobox Politburo

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox Politburo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox legislature (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Politburo with Template:Infobox legislature.
Any reason not to? PPEMES (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Noting that the politburo template has just 13 transcluions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Merge {{Infobox Politburo}} into {{Infobox legislative term}} instead. The use cases of the former seem more similar to a legislative term than the legislative body itself. – Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 12:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Withdrawing since others are pointing out that they were closer to an executive body. I don't know enough to be sure that {{Infobox government cabinet}} is the best place to merge into so I'll leave it to others to decide. – Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 13:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Neutral to that. PPEMES (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Does it matter that it was more of an executive body than a legislative one? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • In that case it can be merged into {{Infobox government cabinet}}. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Neutral to that. PPEMES (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep I think it definitely should not be merged with the "Infobox: Legislature". The Politburo was an executive body, not a legislative one.

There's also problems with merging it with "Government cabinet", because the cabinet in parliamentary systems is part of the executive branch of government, responsible to the legislature. The Politburo was an organ of the Communist Party, responsible to the Central Committee of the Party. Given the structure of Communist one-party states, where the Party had a constitutional role, it doesn't really track with Cabinets in parliamentary systems, because the Politburo was the real decision-making body, but technically not part of the executive of the government itself, only of the Party.

Given the clear differences between a Cabinet in a parliamentary system, and the Politburo in a Communist system, shouldn't the two be kept distinct? What reason is there to merge, other than the Politburo one isn't used very much? But that's more a function of the smaller number of countries where there was a politburo, not an indication that it isn't needed.

In sum, the question shouldn't be "Any reason not to?" The question is: "Is there a reason for the merge?" I don't think there is.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Technically, the equivalent to a Cabinet in the Soviet system appears to have been the Council of People's Commissars (from 1917 to 1946), and then the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union (1946 to 1991). It was appointed by the Supreme Soviet, the legislative body, and had ministerial functions. Not a Cabinet by western models, but that's closer to being a Cabinet (ie an organ of the state) than the Politburo, which was a party organ. Of course, since the party ran the state, the Politburo was more powerful than the Council of Ministers. Really, since the Soviet model was so different from western models, I think it would be a mistake to try to cram Soviet government institutions into templates designed for western forms of government. The two models of government were very distinct, and that should be recognized in our Infobox templates. We shouldn't be assuming that templates designed for western forms of government apply to all governments. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thinking about this point a bit more, and I think WP:GLOBAL sums up my concern. We can't assume that all government bodies world-wide will fit into templates designed for western-style governments. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Nor should it be merged with "Legislative term", since it was an executive body, not a legislative body. The Supreme Soviet was the legislative body, meeting only a few times a year and for short periods. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep seems to be doing a good job as it is. I don't see a good reason for a merge proposed above and, as several commentators say, it seems like the merge will generate a lot of discussion and work to no real benefit to readers?--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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).

Template:2020 coronavirus quarantines

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).

The result of the discussion was move. to {{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic lockdowns in mainland China}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC) Added heading. –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 22:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Template:2020 coronavirus quarantines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose creation of Template:2020 coronavirus quarantines in Hubei (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Template:2020_coronavirus_quarantines) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMKaisar (talk • contribs) 06:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Move to Template:2020 coronavirus quarantines in Hubei. The current name is, IMO, too ambiguous. The template was originally a Hubei-only data table until OP tried to edit the transclusions, believing it was a worldwide template. Also, renaming this would help fit the article "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in Hubei", where it is mainly used. Both templates now have hatnotes. –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 08:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: this issue was discussed at the template's talk page. –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 08:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Move. This template is still useful for information on Hubei, but there are far more quarantined cities elsewhere in China and in other countries. It seems that the template was created back in January, so the global impact couldn't really be anticipated at that point.

I don't think the format of this template would be suitable for a global quarantine template, though. A regular navbox linking to articles like 2020 Hubei lockdowns will work much better in my opinion. Esiymbro (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Move to Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic lockdowns in mainland China (not just Hubei) and Template:2020 coronavirus quarantines outside Hubei should be moved to Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic lockdowns, so it would be consistent with other templates and remove the ambiguity (quarantine is quite ambiguous especially in the worldwide perspective, lockdowns on the other hand is generally understood worldwide). —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support as per Hueman, as it just makes sense. >>BEANS X2t 10:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• Move. Current name is not ok anymore. Yug (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Snow move. The current titles make no sense. There is only one editor who has shown opposition.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

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).

Template:Vikings

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Vikings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Norse people footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Vikings with Template:Norse people footer.
In short, nothing that can even remotedly be considered "viking" was outside of the scope of Norse people. PPEMES (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Why? Both are independently notable concepts. IMO IT's easier for readers to have smaller separate templates than massive templates. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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).

Template:Old Norse sidebar

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Old Norse sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Norse people sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Old Norse sidebar with Template:Norse people sidebar.
Norse people are largely defined as speakers of Old Norse. A merge, anyone, with end result a proper language section inside Norse people sidebar? PPEMES (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep The former template is well-organized and appropriately scoped, no need to merge. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: On what grounds would you oppose if I added language entries in Template:Norse people sidebar (Norse people being defined in fact by their common language)? If you wouldn't oppose that, on what grounds what you insist on a redundant duplication of the language section in a separate Template:Old Norse sidebar? PPEMES (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The same grounds: the template already works well for what it's for, and (as with several of your proposals) I don't see a benefit to upmerging it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, this seems fine just as it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

You do realise that Norse people was an ethnolinguistic group? Should your opposition be understood as advocacy of hiding that information in Template:Norse people sidebar? C.f. Norse. Are you advocating extracting a language sidebar from Template:Indo-European topics as well? PPEMES (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

PPEMES, IMO you should create another TfD for that template; if this one passes, of course. –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 07:43, 24 March 2020; edited 07:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep; Old Norse sidebar is already well-scoped for the language. The Norse people sidebar is also well-scoped for the living people. Plus, I haven't seen on enwiki anyone going around adding "English sidebars" to people that live in Britain. Fine as is. –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 07:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@ToxiBoi: Sorry? There are no living Norse people. The ethnolinguistic group of Norse people is no more, since Old Norse is a dead language? PPEMES (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

PPEMES: Sorry, that was a typo on my end. I should've researched a bit more. My bad. –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 09:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@ToxiBoi: So how is the language irrelevent to be included in a template covering an ethnolinguistic group to you? PPEMES (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per many comments above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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).

Template:Baltic emporia

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 April 5. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Baltic_emporia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Norse_people_footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

Template:Viking ring fortresses

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Viking ring fortresses (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Norse people footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Viking ring fortresses with Template:Norse people footer.
While some of these may have background further back into the Iron Age, having briefly checked the entries, I can't find any which doesn't pertain the medieval North Germanic era, at least not in the context and name under which the template was originally created. That is, the same age that was romanticised by 19th century historians as the "Viking Age" (curiously, though, I doubt any of these fortresses was not erected in order to precisely oppose raids of pirates and other fleet-born invaders). Intended for some "Geography" section within the destination template. PPEMES (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose the ring fortress navbox does an excellent targeted job of linking ring fortresses. Why to all norse people footers need to be linked to all ring fortresses? I don't see a convincing reason for this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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).

Template:Viking runestones

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Viking runestones (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Runestones that mention expeditions outside of Scandinavia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Viking runestones with Template:Runestones that mention expeditions outside of Scandinavia.
As an image within the destination template, similar to how other templates with equivalent illustrative scopes work. PPEMES (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Have you tried actually doing that to see what it would look like? The latter template is quite short, and adding the former's content as an image creates a ton of blank space. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I see what you mean but I think the template could be extended per WP:NOTFINISHED. PPEMES (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to propose this merge when it's extended enough that it wouldn't look ridiculous. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, there are other templates which are primarly comprised by one or a couple of navigational images, such as Template:Timeline of the history of Scandinavia. PPEMES (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

That look like what you're proposing to do here? In that case let's look at deleting those. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per Nikkimaria, this doesn't look a good idea. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

If the scope of Template:Viking runestones means anything, what else does it mean than precisely "runestones that mention expeditions outside of Scandinavia"? This means this template should be filled with more text entries, as illustrated in the image of proposed merge. PPEMES (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per CC. Well said. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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).

Template:Tltts

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).

The result of the discussion was redirect to Template:Tlxs. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Tltts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Tlxs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Tltts with Template:Tlxs.
Template:Tltts duplicates functionality of Template:Tlxs, which is more widely used. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom. Redirect Template:tltt to Template:Tlx as well. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect per Pppery; move to some meaningful name, with the current names kept as redirects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep separate. As a note, I relisted mainly to get it off the "old TFDs" list and maybe breath some new life into this, but I disagree with the idea of merging these two. {{tl-nav}} tells the difference between the two templates, but doesn't actually do a good job of showing the differences.
  • {{tltts}} → {{subst:tltts}}
  • {{Tlxs}} → {{subst:tlxs}}
  • {{tltss}} → {{subst:tltss}}

While it duplicates the functionality, it does not duplicate the appearance, which in my opinion is just as significant. If anything, I think {{tltss}}, shown in the third bullet point, should be merged into {{tltts}} because they're both monospaced without the <code> coding (and I don't really like the way tltss looks). Primefac (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect. Had to stare at this for awhile before I could tell the difference. Aside from causing confusion, there's little value in having different templates (especially considering how the nominated template isn't as widely used). -FASTILY 06:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've reverted your botched relisting, which accidentally removed the previous discussion from the page while thinking it was closing this one. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• weak redirect, although I would have probably merged {{tltss}} to {{tltts}} first before attacking this one. to me <kbd>{{tls|tfd}}</kbd> looks roughly like {{tltts|tfd}} if someone wants the kbd appearance. Frietjes (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

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).

Module:Population clocks

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 April 5. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Module:Population_clocks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).