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. Primefac (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Nasty Habits (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Transcluded in only one article and offers no navigational benefit. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nomination, adds no value. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Useless. --woodensuperman 09:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A NAVBOX composed of one link is useless....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:08, 3 December 2018 (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).

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 Procedurally closed. Per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Header#What not to propose for discussion here. Bsherr (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:User afh-0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An unused template for a constructed language that no one on Wikipedia apparently speaks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:20, 26 November 2018 (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).

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:Germanic peoples. Primefac (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Germanic tribes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Germanic peoples (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Germanic tribes with Template:Germanic peoples.
Couldn't this be reflected in a composite template? Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• merge. A quick glance shows a fair amount of overlap between the two. I'd suggest making sure all the links from ((Germanic tribes)) are present in ((Germanic peoples)) and then simply redirecting. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge tribes into peoples. Significant overlap between the topics, and merging tribes into peoples will offer navigation to related topics that aren't present in the tribes navbox. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge tribes into peoples. Remove misleading use of tribe and replace with more accurate peoples (see also Tribe#Usage_controversy). :bloodofox: (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2018 (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).

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. Primefac (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Kolkata - Suburban Railway, Circular (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused; already covered by Template:Kolkata Suburban Railway stations Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2018 (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).

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. Primefac (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Kolkata - Suburban Railway,Sealdah-Bangaon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused; already covered by Template:Kolkata Suburban Railway stations Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2018 (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).

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. Primefac (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Kazma Sporting Club (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2018 (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).

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. Primefac (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ion DTV Airbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2018 (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).

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. Primefac (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Intro to solution (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2018 (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).

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. Primefac (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:International membership/Design/Generic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:International membership/Design2/Cell (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:International membership/Design2/Levelled organization (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:International membership/Design2/NATO (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:International membership/Design2/Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:International membership/Design2/UN (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:International membership/Design2/WTO (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not used --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination they ain't used. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2018 (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).

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. Primefac (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:International Space Station structure (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:International Space Station structure/full zoom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination they ain't used. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2018 (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).

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. Primefac (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Forever in Your Mind (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough links to provide useful navigation (just one EP) --woodensuperman 14:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination not useful. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2018 (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).

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. Primefac (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:CurtCo Media (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough links for a navbox. feminist (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. CurtCo has sold enough magazines that it doesn't have enough for a navbox.. --Shortride (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2018 (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).

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. Primefac (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:McClain Sisters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough links to warrant a navbox --woodensuperman 10:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2018 (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).

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. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 11:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox sports draft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Template:Infobox basketball draft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Template:Infobox soccer draft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Template:Infobox MLB expansion draft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Template:Infobox PBA draft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Template:Infobox AFL draft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging the above templates all to use Template:Infobox sports draft.
Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pls stop merging project related templates. Causes lots of work for those of us that actually take care of them. --Moxy (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: First, I am one of those who actually take care of them and second if you don't want to do the work then don't? Your statement makes no sense "please don't propose making a change because then if people approve making the change, we will have to actually do work"? Uh..... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: Your user name does not appear in the history of any of the nominated templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think you get it....projects send alot of time talking about the parameters that best suite the articles under there scope.....then we have mergherist that for some reason dont even have the courtesy to inform the project that there is a talk to mess up there work. So now all the project members will have to deal with parameters being filled that have nothing to do with their project. Its one of the reasons many loss interest in projects...because mergerist dont tell them whats going on and of course cause them work for the foreseeable future with unrelated parameters being filled out The is one of the ways consensus is being subverted and it keeps coming up ...but here we are again. --Moxy (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I can't see anything unique about these infoboxes that justify a separate template. It makes more sense for it all to use one unified sports draft infobox. If there are other sports drafts with unique rules/circumstances where a different infobox template would be useful, they should exist, but that does not seem to be the case with those in this merge proposal. UmpireRay (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose since some of these infoboxes have league-specific parameters and they would be lost during the merge. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sabbatino: First, are those parameters really necessary? Second, if they are, why do you assume they won't be included as part of the merger? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• support No need so many infobox templates. We can also merge those parameters if necessary Hhkohh (talk) 08:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't merge this stop it. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2018 (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).

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. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Hall of Fame (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only sixteen transclusions. Redundant to ((Infobox museum)) (or possibly, in some cases, ((Infobox organisation))). The museum infobox is already used for some halls of fame. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, ((infobox museum)) is generally a better infobox. Frietjes (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2018 (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).

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. Primefac (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Too obtrusive and unconventional for most pages. We have multiple templates, scripts, and processes that do this already.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, we don't need this. Frietjes (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Certainly not for articles, for the reasons in the nomination. I can't think of another desirable use for this template. --Bsherr (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unused and usless. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:38, 1 December 2018 (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).

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. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 11:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox LDS Temple (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox religious building (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox LDS Temple with Template:Infobox religious building.
I don't see any reason for LDS temples to have their own custom box. Perhaps I'm missing something? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Please continue the discussion you started first. I'm pretty sure that this would result in unnecessary forking and duplication of data in multiple places. Please dig into how these LDS temple templates actually work and how content is reused in infoboxes, lists, and other places. I advised you last year at Template talk:Infobox LDS Temple to RTFM, and you never responded there. Why nominate the template for deletion instead of continuing the discussion that you started? – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Trödel and Keizaal, who can probably explain it better than I can. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jonesey95: will be 100% honest with you, totally forgot about that conversation! In my defense, that was December of 2016... It seems like there may be a valid reason to keep this as a separate template. That being said, I think it is at least worth discussing. Thank you for pinging other parties. Obviously if there is a valid reason to keep it separate, than separate it shall remain! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Merge as substantially similar to Template:Latter day saint biography, which was deleted on June 2. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see the similarity. Can you please explain how those biography templates were similar to these temple templates? Since they have been deleted, I can't compare how they were used with how the temple templates are used. How do you propose to deal with Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by geographic region, which use these templates to construct articles, without forking content? – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although someone had started to create a structure similar to the LDS temples for LDS biographies, the structure was never fully implemented or the need for it fully embraced as there is not the same level of duplicated use of the same information as there is in LDS Temples. Thus that merger made more sense, but this one does not because of the level of functionality that would be lost, the high level of unnecessary work created by this merger, and the creation of additional maintenance tasks for the future that a merger would necessitate. --Trödel 15:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merge As said by Pppery.----ZiaLater (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose These are not substantially similar and the tempalte does much more than just display the information. The LDS Temple data is stored in the templates that are subpages of Template:LDS_Temple and merging these templates would create substantialy unneeded work, require significant on-going maintenance, and (most importantly) the Religious Building template does not have the flexibility to support the functionality or data in displayed in the LDS Template infobox. For example, although it appears that the designations would handle some of the different criteria (such as groundbreaking, open house, dedication, and rededication) the functionality that automaticaly changes which data is displayed first and which appears initially hidden is controlled by the status parameter. There doesn't appear to be parameters to meet the needs of useful information for patrons of the temples such sealing rooms, ordinance rooms, cafeteria facilities, clothing rental, etc; thus the infoboxes would no longer provide that useful information and it would need to be merged and updated in the template. Finally, as stated the work needed to merge these is subsustantial as the data is in the 170+ subpages of Template:LDS Temple and would need to be copied to each individual temple page. Changes or modifications would no longer be automatically synchronized or updated in other locations where the same data is used such as List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and someone would need to monitor the pages for changes and copy those changes elsewhere. Currently when one edits the infobox, one is taken to the correct subpage to edit that data and it all the other pages that use that data are also updated. THUS, even those who do not understand the structure fully can still edit and update the data where they see it is incorrect and it will propogate and all the places where that data is used will also be updated.

Finally, per the comment above - there is a description and manual for how these templates are used here Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Temples which describes how to setup the Data templates and how they are used in the format templates such as LDS Infobox. As one can see by my edit history, although I setup these templates and the structure on how they are used some time ago, I have taken significant wikibreaks, during which time these templates have been used by others to continue to list new temples as they have been announced (with at least 2 wikibreaks that were ~2 years or longer. And upon return, only some tiding up of references and other minor edits for style were made by me and those changes could have been done by someone else just as easily. Therefore, this setup or structure is not the dependent on 1 person, but has been accepted and is used by the wikicommunity that edits the temple pages. --Trödel 15:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I don't see any reason that the encyclopedic information for a LDS temple would be different than for another religious building. Consider that this is an encyclopedia, not a guidebook for patrons of the temples. --Bsherr (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the patron friendly parameters are a very minor part of my objections and I have offered to remove them - see below. --Trödel 21:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm not sure why this was relisted. So far, the only Merge/Delete statements have not addressed the substantive objections given by editors who understand how this set of templates is different from the proposed merge destination. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Jonesey95, those in opposition have given more substantial objections, however I relisted since there appears quite a few people who do want to merge irregardless - so I relisted to see if they can address the objections brought forward (e.g, there is the suggestion that the parameters that are unique to LDS temple are not necessary). If the objections are not addressed then certainly I'll close this is as no consensus/consensus against in a week. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with only encyclopedic information so, for instance, |clothing_rental=, |cafeteria=, |visitors_center= should go as this is not a Lonely Planet guide. Also, the parameters |preceded_by= and |followed_by= also stick out as something that should probably not be there as we don't do this for any other structure just because it was built before or after. I've taken a look at both templates and both templates (a part from the trivia parameters) are virtually the same and more so, are on the same exact subject. The fact that the LDS Temple data is stored in the templates that are subpages of Template:LDS_Temple is not a positive gain, but something which is against WP:TG which clearly says that templates should not store article text - unless someone wants to RfC that and change the guideline, I see no reason why LDS temples should be an exception here. Finally, just a nitpick really, but the documentation of a template should be on the template page, not on a sub-page of a WikiProject, which does not WP:OWN that template. --Gonnym (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be great if someone would respond to the question I asked above: How do you propose to deal with Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by geographic region, which use these templates to construct articles, without forking content? – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Template:Template parameter value exists for extracting data from templates. --Gonnym (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The information being displayed in the infobox is significantly different than that used for other religious buildings. Additionally, there has been no substantive discussion of how to address the issues raised above other than the community should "deal with it". Finally, it doesn't appear there is any real objection other than - "we should have fewer templates". But I don't see that as a guideline for the template namespace. Additionally, I looked at the ((Infobox religious building)) template and it is not as user-friendly to change and be consistent as clicking the edit button on the LDS Template appears to be. OrlandoCityFan (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and Gonnym. Also get rid of unnecessary parameters, |clothing_rental=, seriously? This doesn't belong to an encyclopaedia.--Darwinek (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think there is unique information that is important to people who care about LDS temples that is contained in the infobox. I don't know a ton about the 'under the hood' workings of templates, but I agree with Jonesey95 that the issue of how the infoboxes are used in lists and other locations is an important one to resolve. I wish I could contribute more ideas to that part of the discussion, sorry! I also have looked at the religious building template and I think I would weakly support a merge if it came down to a merge or deletion. My concern would be how big the template for the religious buildings would get and then maybe we would be having the opposite discussion in a few years about how big the template is and how maybe it should be split up. As a basic user, I find that the larger the template, the less likely I am to use it. It already has domes, minarets, spires, shrines, etc. and I can only imagine how much bigger it would be with some of the LDS data and other future religious building parameters from other religions. I do fully support cleaning up some of the things in the LDS Temple template. I suggest that |clothing_rental=, |cafeteria=, and maybe |visitors_center= are prime candidates to remove. Glennfcowan (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can remove some of those parameters as they are not comprehensively verified across the temples. I would think visitors_centers should remain as a service to those who can not enter the temple. --Trödel 21:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am still concerned that no one has addressed the specific issues of how the information will be maintained. The table extraction suggestion can be used to get the information for the Infobox; however, this suggestion does not address how wikipedians will maintain the information as easily as they can today. Currently any wikipedian can easily update the information for a temple by clicking the edit box in every row (for the table based lists) or in the infobox (for each individual temple). The way to update the information is obvious and standard wikitext. Any of the changes proposed would require template experts to maintain rather than letting the pages and the information be something anyone can edit. Extracting data from the list page correctly in every call to the Infobox religious buildings will introduce more complications into the editing process that are unneeded, will likely result in the problem that existed before where wikipedians just changed information wherever they saw it and the other pages were not updated - thus contradictory information existed, be more difficult to monitor and maintain. --Trödel 21:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's just 100% incorrect. In fact, all other infobox templates on Wikipedia use the standard style of editing which has not needed any "template experts" and a number of the commentators, including myself have addressed this issue. It may not be to your liking, but please do not misrepresent the facts. --Gonnym (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I am misunderstanding however here is what I think would need to happen

New Process

Current Process

1 Click Edit on the page 2 Find the infobox and see something that looks like this (( Infobox religious buildings | name = ((Template parameter value|List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Temple table|4|name|187)) | display_name = ((Template parameter value|List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Temple table|4|display_name|187)) | number = ((Template parameter value|List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Temple table|4|number|187)) | image = <!-- Filename of image to use (do not use Image:) --> | image_caption = <!-- Text to go on caption under image on Infobox only --> | image_width = <!-- Width of image for Lists --> | announcement = ((Template parameter value|List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Temple table|4|announcement|187)) | groundbreaking = <!-- Date of groundbreaking, use "January 1 2000" format --> | groundbreaking_by = <!-- Person who performed groundbreaking --> ... | status = ((Template parameter value|List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Temple table|4|status|187)) ... 3 The person would have to know to change these parameter values to the following (( Infobox religious buildings | name = ((Template parameter value|List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Temple table|3|name|172)) | display_name = ((Template parameter value|List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Temple table|3|display_name|172)) | number = ((Template parameter value|List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Temple table|3|number|172)) | image = <!-- Filename of image to use (do not use Image:) --> | image_caption = <!-- Text to go on caption under image on Infobox only --> | image_width = <!-- Width of image for Lists --> | announcement = ((Template parameter value|List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Temple table|3|announcement|172)) | groundbreaking = <!-- Date of groundbreaking, use "January 1 2000" format --> | groundbreaking_by = <!-- Person who performed groundbreaking --> ... | status = ((Template parameter value|List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Temple table|3|status|172)) ... 4 They would then need to know that the now need to go to the List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and update the information there to ((LDS Temple list | name = Layton Utah Temple | display_name = Layton Utah | number = 172 | image = <!-- Filename of image to use (do not use Image:) --> | image_caption = <!-- Text to go on caption under image on Infobox only --> | image_width = <!-- Width of image for Lists --> | announcement = April 1, 2018 | groundbreaking = November 29, 2018 | groundbreaking_by = Peter M. Johnson ... | status = Under Construction ... 5 Finally, they now need to move the fields from the Announced group to the Under Construction Group - if they do this wrong the template parameter template won't work

1 Click Edit on the Infobox 2 See something like this (( (({format))} | name = Layton Utah Temple | display_name = Layton Utah | number = 187 | image = <!-- Filename of image to use (do not use Image:) --> | image_caption = <!-- Text to go on caption under image on Infobox only --> | image_width = <!-- Width of image for Lists --> | announcement = April 1, 2018 | groundbreaking = <!-- Date of groundbreaking, use "January 1 2000" format --> | groundbreaking_by = <!-- Person who performed groundbreaking --> ... | status = Announced ... 2 Add the Groundbreaking Date by changing the above to (( (({format))} | name = Layton Utah Temple | display_name = Layton Utah | number = 172 | image = <!-- Filename of image to use (do not use Image:) --> | image_caption = <!-- Text to go on caption under image on Infobox only --> | image_width = <!-- Width of image for Lists --> | announcement = April 1, 2018 | groundbreaking = November 29, 2018 | groundbreaking_by = Peter M. Johnson ... | status = Under Construction ... 4 They could also go to the List table and move the row to the Under Construction table, but if they don't it doesn't hurt anything and nothing is displayed wrong

The current process is much less likely to result in errors and updates to the data can be done by anyone. The new process would require that the Wikipedian would understand the template parameter usage, know that the data would need to be changed on the list page, understand how the date interacts between the two pages, update the occurrence information properly on the individual temple page, then go to the list page make that change, etc. This just doesn't seem as user friendly to me.

Additionally, failure to understand how these parameters work would result in data being displayed incorrectly.

Currently all they need to know is the new dates and persons name and to change status from Announced to Under Construction - but even if they don't know the last part, and leave the status as announced, nothing would be displayed incorrectly --Trödel 03:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I see where the confusion lies. ((Template parameter value)) is not for the main article. The main article will look like step 2 of the "Current Process" column example. ((Template parameter value)) would be used for pages that want to compare the temples themselves. And even that can be streamlined more. So if you want to extract a set of given values, just create a wrapper version that already calls the relevant ((Template parameter value)) fields and pass it only the name of the template. A regular user with no template knowledge will then only have to do "((LDS compare template|template name))" in the compare article list. And if the ((Template parameter value)) calls is still something that is disliked, then using the same code for that template, can be used to get the complete infobox and the relevant fields in one call (but that would require advanced module knowledge to set up).

So to summarize -

1. The primary infobox editing process will look the same.
2. The secondary list articles will either be done with:
   1. ((Template parameter value)) direct calls (no extra work needed).
   2. A wrapper version with ((Template parameter value)) calls already setup, passing only the article name (some work needed).
   3. A module that completely retrieves the infobox and extracts the values in one call (advanced work needed). --Gonnym (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Still seems like more work and explaining than is currently necessary. And there appears to be no reason to merge the templates other than "I think we should have fewer and these appear to be duplicative." --Trödel 12:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge & standardise. I suggest keeping the |clothing_rental= and such parameters because they've evidently useful and getting rid of them or not is an editorial decision that's tangential to the immediate technical question of merging. The current infrastructure makes editing LDS temple articles unlike editing the rest of the project. Reducing the load imposed by having to learn both the LDS-specific set-up and the broader encyclopaedia's set-up is a worthy goal; reducing the number of similar templates so that they can share improvements is also worthy. (Alternative proposal: this information should all live on Wikidata anyway...) 82.31.82.76 (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2018 (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).

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. Primefac (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Conduct discussion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The RFC/U process is defunct, so this template is useless.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and deprecate template; let it be preserved for historical reasons. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and mark as historical. I see no reason to delete this. Delete unused. PorkchopGMX (Sign your posts with four tildes!) 04:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What's the reason for historical preservation? This isn't a description of the project. --Bsherr (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Keeping unused code in the system is never good, there is also no historic value in it. --Gonnym (talk) 10:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2018 (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).

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. Discussion split between wanting standardization vs. keeping a separate version for those who prefer it. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Test (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Test2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Test3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Test4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Obsolete, replaced with ((subst:uw-test1)). Also the same for ((subst:test2)), ((subst:test3)) and ((subst:test4)), which were replaced with ((subst:uw-test2)), ((subst:uw-test3)) and ((subst:uw-test4)). –User456541 14:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per all previous TfDs. Nothing has changed - it's a different template and not obsolete. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. What's changed to justify a fresh nomination? @User456541: did you review the previous discussions prior to nominating? Mackensen (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mackensen: I wanted to Redirect to ((subst:uw-test1)), but Twinkle won't let me do so, so I chosen Delete as deletion type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User456541 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless the talk page is missing a link to a more recent discussion, the last discussion was closed a year and a half ago as no consensus. Which of the WP:Speedy keep criteria does this then fall into? --Bsherr (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't matter, because the nominator never even read the talk page, apparently. Redirecting a set of templates repeatedly not deleted at TfD would have been an incredibly disruptive and inappropriate action. Thankfully TWINKLE recognized that apparently, even if the nominator didn't. Mackensen (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (redirect to appropriate UW template). Is there any more substantive argument than the template version of WP:ILIKEIT that can be offered to explain why we need these redundant user warning templates? With everything else on Wikipedia, we resolve our differences and make one version that meets consensus. Indeed, it is fundamentally inconsistent with WP:Consensus for separate versions to exist. If there is something lacking in the UW templates, can we not address it directly by changing the UW template, if there is consensus to do so? As for why now, the biggest reason to me is the poor and corrupted state of the documentation for these templates. Because these templates are substituted, we cannot know whether it's two or two hundred people using them, but it's a big red flag that apparently no one cares enough about them to properly maintain their documentation. --Bsherr (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bsherr: I think it's argument enough to say that there are those of us who prefer the older language and for various reasons find the new language inappropriate. It's convenient to have a standard templated warning to use instead of typing it out by hand each time. I find I don't need documentation to tell me how to type ((subst:test)); if documentation is necessary to use the newer templates then it sounds like they're much too complex. I frankly don't understand why this is a perennial concern. Who's hurt by the existence of these templates? How is this nomination helping Wikipedia get better? Mackensen (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The need to resolve differences, achieve consensus and agree to a single version is mostly only relevant in the article namespace – and that's because we don't normally have two articles on the same topic. That's not really an issue in the template space: if there are two templates that do the same job in slighly different ways and there are groups of people who use each one, then that's fine: there's nothing wrong if there's more than one way to do something.
    These templates are substed, so we can't count transclusions, but we could at least search the user talk namespace for their exact text. It's difficult to see how many people are still using them (there are over 43,000 uses of the first one, most of them from quite a few years ago). But a quick browse came up with several uses from this year: by Bearian, TigerShark, Ixfd64 and Rms125a@hotmail.com on a few user talk pages. The number of people who've used the template this year is obviously more than four, but it's unlikely to be more than 20. – Uanfala (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - both templates serve the same purpose. If the wording of the warning is something that is the sole point of contention that should be discussed and a consensus should be reached. Deciding that because you don't agree with the new style, the old style should be kept, is not how things are done here. Also, I've never really understood reasons like "Per previous discussions" - if your point is strong enough, then say it again, don't make me waddle through other people points to see what you want. --Gonnym (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: it's still used by a non-trivial number of editors, and there's absolutely no reason to force a single wording of user warnings on everyone. – Uanfala (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I personally don't care for the wording; I think it's a bit too abrupt. That said, I don't think it goes far enough to have any policy concerns, and it looks like consensus was gauged as recently as last year to keep these templates. To each their own; the fact that I don't like it is not enough of a reason to delete. Although use of the uw-series templates is pretty uniform, there is no mandate or consensus that I know of that states only uw templates must be used. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the "uw" templates, because both serve the same purpose. funplussmart (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I guess I'm an old-timer, but writing ''subst:test ~~~~'' on user talk pages is what I'm used to doing. Why make things more difficult for longtime users? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:42, 4 December 2018 (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).

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).

. Withdrawn - premature nomination. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposing deprecating ((Chembox)) and redirecting to ((Infobox chemical)). The new template has been built with the following improvements.

• Reduces WP:OVERLINK & MOS:DUPLINK. Nearly every label in ((Chembox)) is linked including things like Eye Hazard.
• In line with WP:ACCESSIBILITY. There are certainly places that things are showing up much bigger than before, but this follows the requirements of WP:ACCESSIBILITY.
• Fewer templates to maintain. ((Chembox)) has separate templates for nearly every single row in the table, adding up to well over 200 separate templates. WAY more than is necessary.
• Builds on the style, look and feel of ((Infobox drug)). The Infobox drug template, formally known as ((Drugbox)) was also converted to use ((Infobox)). This one uses many of the same styles and subtemplates as that.
• Implements much better Check for unknown params. The use of Module:TemplatePar is fine, but it has a much more narrow scope and is not nearly as well documented or maintained as Module:Check for unknown parameters.
• From the editors point of view, works the same. These templates will work exactly the same as the ((Chembox)) series of templates. NO parameters have changed. So apart from having to call ((Infobox chemical)) instead of ((Chembox)), there is no change to how editors will use the templates. No new parameters & no new syntax. As per the other points made here, there are certainly some stylistic changes to how the template renders, but I want to be clear that for the editor, nothing new except for calling a different template.
• All necessary subtemplates have also been converted The multiple sub-templates required for the whole series to function have ALSO already been converted. So for example, ((Chembox Hazards)) → ((Infobox chemical/hazards)).

Be sure to check out the testcases for a side by side comparison of the old and new template.-- Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose, this has not been tested sufficiently. If and when wanted, the old templates can be turned into redirects without deleting the (maybe still needed information. Besides that: this deletion suggestion is pointy, and the switchover is not performed with an consensus of the local community nor of the community at large, rather it is stuffed down our throats without merit. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a set of tests to help Zackmann08 develop and debug the infobox, see Template:Infobox chemical/testcases and Template:Infobox chemical/testcases2. These tests cover infoboxes that use all of the sub-templates, and include Featured and Top-Importance articles on Chemistry. Zackmann08 wrote a set of unit tests for each of the sub-templates. A number of subtle formatting problems were found and fixed.

The infobox was specifically designed to lose no information in the conversion --- it's completely plug-compatible with ((Chembox)), by design. The conversion is simple, requiring no parameter renaming or re-writing. We would simply swap out the sub-templates (e.g., ((Chembox Hazards))) and swap in the corresponding new sub-templates (e.g., ((Infobox chemical/hazards))).

I would propose a "slow rollout" of this infobox. Zackmann08 has already converted ~60 articles. We paused to fix a formatting issue (involving a zero-sized row), but now everything looks ok. I would recommend deletion only after we've received feedback from a gradual roll-out. —hike395 (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose that user:Zackmann08 withdraws this TfD, and gives concerned editors (major contributors and WikiProjects) a 1-3 month period to check and consider, as opposed to stuffing it down peoples overfilled throats over Thanksgiving. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should do any conversion slowly and carefully. —hike395 (talk) 04:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please consider to speedy close this so we can find another way forward? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Beetstra. All throughout the development of this alternative, involved wikiprojects had serious misgivings on their project talkpages, and Zackmann08 explicitly declared they were not interested in receiving feedback about whether it should go forward. At a minimum, the previous should be kept while this suspicious process plays out. Subsequent to that, the existing ones could be converted into wrappers or the new templates themselves so that the new implementation is solely "behind the scenes" rather than requiring edits to xx-thousand articles. The nomination here is at best a belated attempt to establish consensus for the conversion. DMacks (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DMacks: now you are just flat lying. Saying I was not interested in receiving feedback is a flat lie. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] and the list goes on. This is a DISCUSSION about whether the template can be replaced. So rather than throwing accusations at me, why don't we discuss the template? Have you even looked at it? Or the testing that has been done? Or are you just assuming that I haven't tested it? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • to closing admin: most of these notes were left over Black Friday/Thanksgiving weekend, and the OP did not give time (effectively less than 24 hours sometimes) nor the chance to respond before posting this here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You posted "right now just looking to get some names of people who are willing to join the not-yet-named Chembox taskforce. If you have concerns about the entire process, please make some notes, but right now, if possible can we just discuss who wants to be part of the process??". That sounds pretty clearly "I do not want to hear concerns about whether/if, just help actually doing it right now". Followed in three days with announcing you have a prototype, followed less than two days later by actually rolling it out (with no further calls for wikiproject input). DMacks (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Zackmann08 I strongly suggest you withdraw this; replacing chembox with infobox chemical as a ((infobox)) backed template does not require a TfD, and I don't think people are actually that opposed to it - assuming as it appears that it is mere small stylistic differences and the use of ((infobox)), no one really cares that much what the internals are as long as "From the editors point of view, works the same"- however, what is causing opposition is that you're rushing through the whole process. Post on Template talk:Chembox, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry that you've completed ((Infobox chemical)) to replace ((Chembox)), and let people have a week or two (or more time as necessary) to look over the infobox and see if they have any concerns, and build a consensus for the rollout - don't say things like "before we roll it out" assuming a consensus for the roll-out. You've put a lot of work into ((Infobox chemical)) - if you discuss this properly at a reasonable pace I think you'd get the outcome you want. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zackmann08 has left WP for the evening. We will need to wait for ~12-16 hours for him to consider the withdrawl suggestion. —hike395 (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hike395: I have requested to speedy close this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose after a couple of aborted RFC attempts that had no consensus, deletion is now tried. As this is a heavily used box it needs far more discussion and testing before it is replaced. If this is going to be radically changed then it should also get radical improvements, rather than minor changes that could also be easily put in with the existing template. Future changes could allow the section subtemplates to no longer be used, but to be integrated into the top template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides the point here, but I would oppose (rather strongly) to get rid of the subtemplates, as I have argued before, that is going to be an organisatorial mess (though arguably easier for the editors, which I doubt with the competence needed to set up a template anyway, and a good manual/copy-paste example). The subtemplates keep the fields organized within the document, and make editing one field within the template easier. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:24, 26 November 2018 (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).

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 2018 December 5. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 11:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox_comics_genre (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox_literary_genre (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).

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. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 11:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox video game character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox video game character with Template:Infobox character.
All video game characters are characters; the distinction is increasingly arbitrary, with video game characters appearing in movies, novelisations, advertising etc; and characters from other media being used in video games.

This would involve adding the following parameters (or parameter-aliases) to the more general template:

Are |collapsible= and |width= needed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As has been pointed out before in this template's prior TFDs, ((infobox video game character)) is deliberately less permissive than infobox character regarding many in-universe parameters. Unless you can convince editors interested in the more-general template to remove those parameters, or we make this template a pass through (and you're welcome to sandbox the pass through), this is a keep separate. --Izno (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, I'm not concerned with what infobox video game character does that infobox character does not. I am worried about what infobox VG character does not that infobox character does. Basically, Template:Infobox character allows for a whole bunch of garbage WP:WAF-failing parameters. Our infoboxes should be succinct and they should be primarily about the out-of-universe aspects. Template:Infobox character fails on the second account which causes it to fail on the first. --Izno (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Video game characters are different than live-action characters. It's true video game characters are characters, but that doesn't mean it should merge with infobox character because of the factors mentioned for the proposal. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody has proposed merging the template with "Infobox live-action character". HTH. ((Infobox character)), on the other hand, is used on articles including Godzilla, Eeyore, and Mickey Mouse. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as the parameters found in the video game IB could reasonably be added to the general template, so that keeping both infoboxes is an unnecessary duplication.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - All character infoboxes should use the same infobox and have the same style. If a parameter shouldn't be in a video game, then it shouldn't be in other fictional character articles (television, comics, etc), and vice versa. Having WP:LOCALCON decide for "their" pages what's right is just another issue of WP:OWN. --Gonnym (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding the parameters - I'm not in favor of adding |align=, and |width= as the infobox should be in a familier style to readers, regardless of the page (also, those parameters are not documented and probably under-used); not in favor of adding |collapsible= and |state= as content should not be hidden; not in favor of adding |inuniverse= as it serves no use other than to be a parameter to add ((Infobox character)) data to the infobox (which will be redundant). The following params should be deprecated as there is already a parameter in ((Infobox character)) just named slightly different: |portrayed by= deprecated for |portrayer=; |voiceactor= deprecated for |voice=; and |firstappearance= deprecated for |first=. I also don't see any need for |child= and |subbox= as this template shouldn't really be nested in any other one (and also these are not documented). --Gonnym (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sooooo, I trust you'll be starting a conversation about those parameters missing from infobox video game character at the infobox character template talk page? :) --Izno (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what discussion you want exactly but I'll participate in any I know about. As I said, there is no difference between fictional characters, and since there is no difference, there should be no difference in what parameters are allowed. I personally don't mind either way, as I don't see why "family"-type parameters shouldn't be added as I see their value, but I don't also mind they not being in if that is what the community decides. --Gonnym (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • as I don't see why "family"-type parameters shouldn't be added as I see their value Family is actually one of the problematic ones. If the character has significant family, then that can be provided in the text--otherwise, we're looking at needing to manage a field which does not talk about the character from an out of universe perspective. In general, characters (and their infoboxes) are subject to WP:CRUFT and having a more restricted set avoids that otherwise maintenance headache. --Izno (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't really believe there is community consensus on only out-of-universe elements. FA articles have them, all other character infoboxes have them. Even the MoS itself does not say it straight out that all in-universe material is not allowed (WP:CRUFT is an essay so holds no weight). If a specific element should not be included then that should really be a site-wide guideline and not something that a few editors decided and never documented anywhere. --Gonnym (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did not say "only". Thanks for helping me to develop this argument on my talk page ;): No, it doesn't disallow material that is more fictional than not, but it actually does disallow an in universe treatment of that content. In this case, the character infobox puts inappropriate weight on concepts like "family" and "title" and... so on. These aren't concepts that a generalist encyclopedia needs or wants when discussing its characters in the detail reserved to a specific article. single infobox will not allow parameters that other infoboxes that deal with the same subjects (so not WP:OSE) is just wrong How so? You assert without reference to policy or guideline here. At best, this is a vague reference to WP:CONLEVEL? The level of consensus that a guideline like the MOS or a policy like WEIGHT enjoys is above and beyond that of a template specific to fictional characters--so it perturbs me that there is a defense of the current infobox character here. --Izno (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Some of your comment makes no sense without my previous comments for context but I'll just comment on this: WP:LOCALCONSENSUS was used by the video editors to create a "fork" of the character template because they disagreed with some parameters, yet all other character templates have them, that is basically using a backdoor to create a guideline against the consensus status-quo (instead of actually challenging it in a discussion or RfC). I also don't think that WP:WEIGHT is an issue here, having a parameter for family under a "in-universe" header, does not make the infobox imbalanced, nor is the presence of that parameter (or any for that matter) specifically not allowed by any guideline or policy, which again, seems to be a LOCALCONSENSUS decision. --Gonnym (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another problematic one is "last appearance"; see commentary at the talk page. --Izno (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can see some logic in that, even if I ignore the fact that that discussion is barely even a discussion (though for me that really is just semantics and not an issue in itself). --Gonnym (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a reason that this discussion is held on a page with "Templates for discussion" in the title and is advertised on both of the affected teamplette's pages, and on all of the pages using one for other of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - if there is a need for a smaller set of parameters for video games character, you can add several blank copies in documentation, not create another template. Wikisaurus (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't prevent someone from using those templates. --Izno (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because of the complexities here as brought up by Izno and I disagree that all fictional characters must have the same infobox. This one and ((Infobox comics character)) should be left alone. However, I propose merging all the video game character templates in Category:Video game character infobox templates into this template. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are deliberately separate templates used in the |universe= parameter as sub-boxes. --Izno (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because I always thought the purpose of the video game character infobox was because it supports that unique "English/Japanese voice actors" thing. Dogman15 (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template has no such parameters; merely |voiceactor=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ((infobox video game character)) is very similar to ((Infobox character)) and it could use some the parameters in Template:Infobox character, but if we do merge Template:Infobox character needs some parameters that are currently in Template:Infobox video game character – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 00:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support definitely can be combined. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The two templates are relatively similar in terms of their parameters; compare Template:Infobox character to Template:Infobox video game character. The extra parameters in Infobox character can still be used for video game characters. Jalen D. Folf (talk • contribs) 18:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support surprisingly to me – As a fellow WPVG editor I usually find myself aligning easily with Izno but in this case I think the fork to "block" some parameters used in the broader template because we "disagree" with their usage is not solving a problem but avoiding it by being insular, which is a criticism often leveled against WPVG. Instead if some parameters of ((Infobox character)) are always in violation of MOS:WAF, that should be discussed on the template and/or MOS talk and removed from the template; additionally, at any given time, if parameters are misused on any specific article that can always be cleaned up and removed. We have some rarely-appropriate parameters in ((Infobox video game character)) (and ((Infobox video game)) too), and when they are not used appropriately, they are cleaned up at the article-level. People misusing templates will be a thing as long as humans edit here, forking stuff endlessly to narrower and narrower topics does not seem like it will solve anything. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm all in favor of a centralized discussion so we could reassess and build consensus on what parameters should be used for character infoboxes if this passes. This will also allow us to merge in other character infoboxes later on. --Gonnym (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per Dogman15. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 04:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... I have a hard time seeing how "per Dogman15's misconception" makes for a sound argument to present. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 04:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hansen Sebastian and Dogman15: the voiceactor parameter should be able to support multiple entries through use of line breaks. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely oppose - the general infobox is about "significant others" (and why is it even being linked to be explained? this and "voice actors") and religion and other crap that is completely useless and are to be abused by just being used, while having no relevant fields such as for the designer (which is different than creator) or the fighting style. Don't do it, it will just fuck up the whole thing completely. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also the whole opening argument about how "characters from other media being used in video games" is completely irrevelant because it's NOT and never was about characters that are not from games originally (like comics characters, that incidentally have their own infobox too, just like Template:Infobox animanga character about the comics too but from Japan). All the fields not being used are UNWANTED here and you'll only be giving me (as I'm using it more than just anyone else currently, even if I never worked on creating that (or any other) infobox, but it just works) a additional work on removing them every time anyone adds anything about "relatives" and "children" (being separately) and whatever else. These things ARE of use, as for example in Morgan le Fay or Evil Queen (Disney) (that I did work on a lot, or even created), or at least mostly, they are just NOT needed for characters like Chun-Li (that I'm working on rn) because they are fundamentally DIFFERENT. Different things are important, and other things are NOT important (and which is why there are sub-templates for DIFFERENT kinds of game characters, where just different things are of importance - for example the "fighting style" I mentioned is essential for fighting game characters but only for them, and a fighting game character is one that originates from one and not someone just "being used in" at some point). It's been like that for many many years, and it works perfectly well for those who do use it (that's me). And honestly I didn't even think it's about merging it as I thought the annoying messages over the infobox was about something else, didn't read it and only waited for it to go away, because I had no idea anyone would even consider this. And Jesus Christ, just de-link these "significant others" and "voice actors" from the main template already as we're here, it's not the "Simple English Wikipedia" for people who don't understand very simple common phrases! So anyway it would be appropriated if you just withdrew this nomination. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The claim that "the general infobox is about 'significant others'" is false; see, for example, its use on Paul Bunyan or Slartibartfast. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have the line "significant others" even linked "significant others" for people who are somehow too stupid to understand what this (and "voice actors") does mean (these links should be removed, hell, I'll do it). And as I said this IS useful in some articles, but not in video game ones. Video games have the unique thing that is gameplay (such as fighting styles and weapon types for fighting game characters in their sub-box) and plot is often a trivia (sometimes even just no plot), while this stuff is for literary characters and such where the plot is often even the only thing that is. Different forms of media, different infoboxes. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd argue that Chun-Li's Occupation as "Interpol officer" (which is in her infobox) is much less useful and relevant than a family parameter at Kitana, since her family connections are very central to the entire story of Mortal Kombat. --Gonnym (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nothing in your post disproves my statement; nor supports yours. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support due to the overlap between both templates. The only distinction is that Template:Infobox character is more permissive. The problem with most of the votes in opposition is that they seem to be based on the preconceived idea that "It's different, therefore it should have its own template". If a parameter doesn't belong in a specific page, just don't use that parameter. Template:Infobox video game character can still easily be used as a shortcut, and while SNAAAAKE!! has a point of about having to remove more parameters from Template:Infobox character, that's easily just a documentation issue which can be fixed by adding a separate "Usage" section specifically for video game characters.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, if you do it, change "artist=" into "designer=" for the "Designer" line (and make a bot change it in the articles). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Some tweaking and work to be done maybe but I've never liked the separate infobox, and a fair number of video game character articles already use Infobox character instead of Infobox video game character due to its more expansive set of parameters. Issues or tweaks to infobox character is really a separate topic and can easily be done. -- ferret (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Break[edit]

• Support: Video game characters are still characters! Why have a separate infobox for video game characters but not other characters. The Optimistic One (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have one for comic characters, but that one is kind of understandable, given the difference between comic characters and other characters. There does need to be more cohesion between character infoboxes, but not just for the sake of it.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a much greater difference between games and non-interactive (like comics, only a form of book) characters than between any other. If anything, game infobox should be made more different, like maybe introducing the "main type" of character (like Cyberdemon being a "boss", as in Boss (video gaming) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Video_game_bosses) and Mona Sax being a non-player character. And if you need to understand how much video games can be different on the very fundamental level compared to story-driven media such as comics, just looks at the infoboxed there: https://doom.fandom.com/wiki/Cyberdemon_(Doom_2016) or here https://doom.fandom.com/wiki/Cyberdemon_(Doom_3) for the Cyberdemon in their natural habitats. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 07:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every character is different from every character, but that doesn't mean the infoboxes should be separate. The parameters from the fandom site, to me, are too unimportant to be added - most games also have many small patches which change the attack damage and health of mobs, and don't document this, so these fields will quickly become garbage. On the other hand, the playable character/boss distinction, to me, is notable. --Gonnym (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know, just showing how different video games are from the standard non-interactive, narrative-based media such as comics. Regarding the supposedly stark "difference between comic characters and other characters", which in reality is minimal and the comic books are very much just like the other books. Only interactive novels and walking simulators are anything like the traditional media, but I know of only literally 1 such a character's article (Ayu Tsukimiya). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Per nom and most support comments. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 15:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - These are two separate things. While I get why, we would then be limiting what new fields could be added in the future. Handoto (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because the video game characters are about who is voicing them. Characters otherwise come from novels, and may be played in film and stage adaptations, or may not. It is not important who voices them. I looked at Jane Eyre (character), Elizabeth Bennet, Mr. Darcy, Pip (Great Expectations), and Jack Aubrey just now. One has a list of all the actors who played the character in films, using up half the infobox. I think that should be removed from the infobox. The rest focus on the character as he or she is in the novel. If there is interest in the adaptations and who played the character, my own view is to keep that in the main article on the novel, or in a separate article on the adaptation if one is written. Video game characters arise from a new medium and have different descriptors than those characters who arise first in a novel. Having separate infobox parameters reflects and respects the different origins of the characters, in my view. If a character from a novel was not played on screen, what to do with all those parameters about who voiced the character? They are unnecessary. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really think that video game characetrs are the only ones who should get a voice actor field? wow. So for characters like Ash Ketchum (who apeartnly uses infobox video game character, even-though he clearly isn't one) we should remove the actors who voiced him right? What about Rick Sanchez (Rick and Morty)? I think you might have been focusing too much on novel characters and forgot about almost everything else out there. --Gonnym (talk) 08:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ash Ketchum is a manga/anime character. They do have a separate infobox too ([14]) even as they're only traditional media characters (like the ones from comics), unlike games that are unlike any other media that by necessity are very plot-driven. B.J. Blazkowicz's all kinds of background traits have been absolutely unimportant for about quarter of century (beginning with literally only "he's an American spy") until the awful latest game, in which he's got parents and a "significant other" and all that crap as the game was turned into a barely interactive movie at the expense of gameplay. Luckily, Doomguy also from idSoftware was given no such treatment, his entire backstory is still that he's been killing demons and now he kills demons. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ash Ketchum uses ((Infobox animanga character)), which is a wrapper for ((Infobox character)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Video games characters are not the same as literature or TV or film characters. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 15:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-one is saying that they are. The question is: do we need two templates? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as proposed. It seems to me that almost all of the parameters can be properly merged into the character infobox, and as always, don’t necessarily need to be used in the article. OhKayeSierra (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. As proposed by Andy. Fictional characters are still characters whether they are from video games, comics, films or other media. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 03:18, 5 December 2018 (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).

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 after replacement with ((Media based on H. P. Lovecraft works)) (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Call of Cthulhu RPG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm thinking for a proposed deletion on this template because after I've looked at the article of this publisher, Chaosium only publishes board games, they do NOT publish video games. This template seems misleading. Neverrainy (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This navbox is fine. I removed the video games, since, as the OP says, they are unrelated to the Chaosium game. I checked all of the other articles, and they are all tied to the original game. Suggest speedy close. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All entries are already included at ((Media based on H. P. Lovecraft works)). --woodensuperman 12:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Good find. In that case, I recommend Replacing ((Call of Cthulhu RPG)) with the much more useful ((Media based on H. P. Lovecraft works)) wherever ((Call of Cthulhu RPG)) occurs, and then Deleting it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2018 (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).