The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete as redundant to infobox sport Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly designed, vertical navbox with only four links; was used on only two articles, now orphaned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: On behalf of WikiProject Equine. Infobox sport is perfectly adequate and used for all of the other horse sport articles that have infoboxes. (Most should) Montanabw(talk) 23:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Montanabw's comment immediately above. If WikiProject Equine prefers to use a more generic template, the project should be given that deference. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Weather/ disaster notices
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.
Propose mergingTemplate:Current tornado outbreak with Template:Current disaster.
Both are currently unused due to the lack of disasters getting attention right now. It would be better to have a smaller number of templates to remember when one is actually needed, and there's no need to be so precise in the wording. A smaller number of templates will also make it easier to update the wording across all current disaster templates, as I just had to do. -- Beland (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose mergingTemplate:Current tropical cyclone with Template:Current disaster.
It's currently a simple call to the other template, and there's no particular need to be more specific. These are actually both unused right now, since there are no current disasters getting a lot of attention. Better to have a smaller number of templates to remember when one does occur and a template needs to be slapped on the article. -- Beland (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both weather templates in favour of ((Current)) or ((Current disaster)) as apprpriate. Otherwise, merge the tornado & cyclone templates as, say "Current weather event". Not all weather events are disasters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Current weather event seems a good target for merge/rename—PC-XT+ 08:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC) 08:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep "Current Tropical Cyclone", a tropical cyclone is not really a disaster if it has not impacted land. For example, the template can be used on a tropical cyclone that remains over the ocean and doesn't threaten land; in such a case, it certainly wouldn't be appropriate to call it a "current disaster". Alternatively, a tropical cyclone that threatens land wouldn't be considered a "current disaster" if it hasn't impacted land or there's uncertainty in whether it will hit land and, if so, how strong it would be, so it may or may not be a potential disaster; either way, the wording of the "Current tropical cyclone" is much more appropriate than the current disaster template.
Merge "Current tornado outbreak", as there's not sufficient difference between that template and the "Current disaster" template.AHeneen (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with a combination of both users PC-XT and AHeneen. Not all tropical cyclones, or even tornado outbreaks, significantly affect land, therefore they can't truly be considered disasters. However, a possible solution would be to rename the "Current disaster" template to "Current weather event" and then merge the "Current tornado outbreak" and "Current tropical cyclone" templates into that. TropicalAnalystwx13(talk) 22:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete as now orphaned per nom Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep now that a history merge has been performed. There is no objection to moving the template to ((Template:Infobox song contest)) (in lower case). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any necessary improvements should be made to the original, ((Infobox Eurovision)), based on ((Infobox)), then that template renamed over this one (albeit with corrected capitalisation); leaving a redirect, rather than the recent and unnecessary practice of manually replacing templates ([1], [2] etc.). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete + renaming of ((Infobox Eurovision)), keeping the history intact. -- [[axg//✉ ]] 17:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the responsible party needs cluebatted here. If someone points me at whatever changes are required to fix the original so that the various forks are unneeded I'll see if I can do it (along with ((infobox))ing it). Obviously all the bulk-edits should be undone in the interim. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion again. For all the same reasons as the last go-around. Montanabw(talk) 23:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep considering it was already apparent from the discussions of 6 December that this infobox is the new universal replacement of ((Infobox Eurovision)) - and it was actually suggested to make such universal box by none other than Pigsonthewing. And I think it may need to be reminded that the nominator actually has a ArbCom sanction on himself regarding discussion of infoboxes - of which can result in a year-long block. Andrew even stated in the discussions of 6 December, that the other nominated infoboxes would not be deleted until the replacement was ready and rolled out. This is the replacement.Wes Mouse | T@lk 11:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel I'm in breach of a sanction, please raise the matter at WP:AE (although note that similar attempts to use that to silence deletion discussions have failed). Otherwise, you are just making ad hominem attacks. Who is "Andrew"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be pedantic, you know as well as anyone else does, that Andrew is the longer version of Andy. And yes, perhaps taking this matter to AE is required. The sanction states that you are not to add, remove, or discuss infoboxes. Creating TfD's is a sly underhanded way of getting around such sanction, as you clearly nominate with the intention of letting someone else delete on your behalf; and thus are skirting around the sanction ruling. Wes Mouse | T@lk 13:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can take it to AE if you like. As someone who spent a good amount of time cleaning this mess up several years ago, I'm not especially keen to have it discarded by some copy-pasted replacement. This should have been done properly by building on the original code; indeed, it must be done to preserve attribution of the template history. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wesley Mouse: I didn't ask you for the derivation of the name "Andrew"; I asked you who the Andrew to whom you addressed your comment is. Also please stop your mass deployment of this new template, until this TfD is resolved. To continue as you are doing is disruptive. (Pinged, so you're aware of this comment). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: How is the rollout "disruptive"? Have you forgotten that on 7 December 2014CT Cooper stated that a new universal template ((Infobox Song Contest)) should be created and replace the problematic "forked" ones. On 7 December 2014 you replied back to CT Cooper by stating "nothing would be replaced or deleted "until a replacement template is ready"; that's what this discussion is (supposed to be) about". A replacement is ready, the replacement has been rolled out so that the nominated templates can be deleted without controversy. If the likes of the predecessor ((Infobox Eurovision)) need to be technically moved into its successor is required, then so be it. I fail to see why you have nominated a new universal design that has been made, following your comments and recommendations from the TFD dated 6 December. Its a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Wes Mouse | T@lk 14:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's disruptive, for the reasons given in the deletion ratinonale in this section. Thank you confirming that you are now aware of my request that you desist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Attribution is hardy a major issue - the new and old templates can have their histories easily merged through use of the delete/move buttons. There is no need for a whole load of drama over it. As for the new template itself, it's unfortunate that those complaining about how it was created, its quality etc. didn't make more detailed or helpful suggestions earlier on how they wanted. CT Cooper ·talk 01:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thumperward: There has been no copy/paste as such. I got in contact with AxG via his talk page User talk:AxG#Universal infoboxes for Project Eurovision, as I am not very good at creating infoboxes myself (all the #if codes are somewhat confusing to me). Anyhow, as I knew that AxG was the creator of ((Infobox Eurovision)), I felt it was only fair to contact him and see if he could work on a new universal version, which was recommended at the TfD of 6 December and at the project talk page. AxG built the new coding in his sandbox (User:AxG/Sandbox/12) and at his talk page he stated it was finished and was ready to be transferred to the new template space - which is what was done. Seeing as I was given permission by the creator to carry out this action, then I do not understand how A) I am being accused of plagiarism by Andy when permission was granted to me to copy the new code to the new template space. And B) why this template has even been put up for nomination, when Andy was one of the parties who actually suggested that a new universal template be created. Even an admin at AE notes that "nominating the replacement template for deletion after suggesting it does sound a bit silly". Had it not been that I mentioned this new template was now created via the TFd of 6 December, then Andy would not have known of its existence - so he is clearly demonstrating stalking of some kind by finding things I've created, and nominating them for deletion with intent to cause distress and fuel up more heated tension and debates. He also started to edit war on the project page, of which A) he is not a member of, and B) an admin also tells him that "the project decides what templates to display" and to "butt out". This nom is just a waste of time and purely disruptive. Wes Mouse | T@lk 10:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is readily apparent from even a cursory inspection of the source code and history that ((Infobox Song Contest)) is copied from ((Infobox Eurovision)); was created by you; and has no attribution. As for your fatuous allegation of stalking and the cited editor's and your own lack of understanding of WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in what random admins have said, in your history with Andy, or with any other red herring you're waving around. I'm interested in fixing these templates to preserve the history after it's been broken by an editor who by his own admission barely knows what he's doing. As an involved party here I'm not going to use my tools to fix that myself, but I'll be doing it after this is closed; the only thing that's required is for some clueful uninvolved admin to put an end to the present warring so that I can sort it all out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CT Cooper is correct in that if a history merge can be performed here that fixes a lot of the issues, but it's essential that this is carried out: at present there is a clear history break due to the complete mess-up made of the introduction of the new versions. As for getting involved in advance, it's somewhat difficult to get involved in a conversation without being notified that it's taking place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the meaning of my comment is very clear, even more so when it isn't quote mined. It's clear what needs to be done, and I've given my support to merging the template histories. There is no need to stir-up controversy where it doesn't exist. I would like to thank Thumperward for managing the situation and providing assistance. CT Cooper ·talk 02:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't speaking to you Andy, I was speaking to Thumperward - so please address your disgusting remarks elsewhere. And for the record, the template coding was not created by me, and I proven that by providing the link to AxG's sandbox in which he did the entire work. Is there a template that can be added to infobox talk page, so that we can highlight that AxG is the creator? But to address @Thumperward:'s comment, I agree that Cooper is right too, and he and I have spoke about this the other day when I informed him that AxG had agreed to help out by creating the coding of a new universal template. Coop said that he would be more than happy to do the history moves if it were to restore peace and civility to these parts. But I'm not sure if that would be allowed partly because he is a member of project Eurovision and has also commented and/or !voted on these TfD's. Wes Mouse | T@lk 13:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I wasn't speaking to you Andy" Tough,If you post here anyone - me, Thumperward, any other editor - is at liberty to answer. And when what you post is arrant nonsense, anyone is at liberty to refute it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just found ((Histmerge)) for the history merge. Which page is it wise to tag it on? AxG's sandbox, ((Infobox Eurovision)), or both? Also I'm not sure if ((Interwiki copy)) or ((Copied)) are the templates that I would use to show the attribution. Any advice please, Chris? Wes Mouse | T@lk 14:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Thumperward for those links. I have submitted a request per your advice. Hopefully that should clear up this bit of a blunder. Does that mean the old ((Infobox Eurovision)) will require a redirect into the new ((Infobox Song Contest))? As for the other universal boxes, so that we don't get into this mess again, I will try to use the coding that AxG worked on, see if it can be modified into National Year and Country inofboxes for these contests, and then I'm guessing a page move to its new title is the correct step forward? At least then the TfD's will have reached some progressive conclusion. Wes Mouse | T@lk 14:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it means the new fork should be deleted; and the pre-exiting templates merged and improved as was originally proposed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from altering other's talk page comments. I may not have wanted my comments to be bullet-pointed; and such change is of my choice to make not yours. Also as noted, I addressed my question to a specific user, not at you. Speak when spoken to, it is rude to butt into other's conversations. Wes Mouse | T@lk 17:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have not "altered other's [sic] talk page comments"; I fixed the list formatting, which you have again broken. As for "butting in"; please read what I wrote above (and note who started this conversation). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wesley Mouse: "Speak when spoken to" is not an appropriate comment. Wikipedia work on consensus, which means discussion, such as what's supposed to happen here on "Template for discussion". If you desire private conservation, Wikipedia discussion page is not the venue for it. Regards -- KTC (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthony Appleyard: thank you for fixing that, much appreciated. It now means we are at least one step closer towards resolution (I think). KTC, I do apologise for my remark as it was a bit untoward. I merely got frustrated as I had asked one user a question, and felt it a tad rude when someone else appeared to be answering it on their behalf, especially in the harsh tone that was used. Now that this history merge has happened, what steps forward do we need to take now, in order to put a peaceful end to this? Wes Mouse | T@lk 11:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just received this message in my user talk page from User:Pigsonthewing: "A request from an editor opposing (indeed, disruptively so) both proposals. You've been played. Please revert the move; which I acknowledge was done in good faith on your part. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthony Appleyard: thank you for making me aware that an editor has openly slagged my name into the ground by calling me "disruptive" and accusing me of being a "player". I'm starting to get sick to the back teeth of the users uncalled for arrogance, mudslinging, derogatory name-calling my persona. It is clear from the discussions above that everyone was in favour of merging the page history so that attribution was restored. This has been carried out. The nominator suggested the creation of this universal-style infobox, it has been done, and now they are demonstrating a I don't like it attitude. This calls for urgent admin intervention, as their behaviour is causing me serious distress and anxiety, to the point were I feel as though they are doing anything in their power to have me leave Wikipedia for life. Wes Mouse | T@lk 16:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after recent history merges. Neutral on naming to ((Infobox song contest)) -- [[axg//✉ ]] 17:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think if AxG doesn't mind the current arrangement, I'll remain neutral on it, though placing copied notices on the talk pages may be in order. The lowercase name seems better. —PC-XT+ 06:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - after recent history merges.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Banis
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete with no objections. No quorum, thus no objection to recreation. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.