Template:Table tennis at the 2020 Summer Olympics – List of Qualified NOCs
Module:TeamBracketNoHeadings
- 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 Soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused fork of Module:TeamBracket; should be a parameter to that module if the feature is desired at all. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:51, 7 March 2020 (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 keep. If there are features that should be added to the main infobox from the Australian one, a discussion should be started on the former's talk page. (non-admin closure) Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Infobox Australian road into Template:Infobox road.
Previous proposal, in 2014, closed as "discuss further changes after Luafication". However, after more than five years, there appear to have been no steps towards that process. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose In my opinion, the Australian road infobox is superior to Infobox road, Infobox street and Infobox road junction due to additional functionality. I will only support if the current look of the Australian road infobox in all Australian road articles will be kept unchanged in a merged version. Marcnut1996 (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Marcnut1996: What is this "additional functionality"? --Rschen7754 01:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is all explained in the previous extensive discussions regarding the infobox. A discussion on the template's talk page would be a much better place to get into intricate detail than here as dong it here will only serve to bog down the discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Qualified support—my preference would be to find some method to merge the two templates at some point. Imzadi 1979 → 01:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the concerns about letting the discussion go stale, but a gentle nudge at the appropriate WikiProjects would have sufficed. I believe that the conversations about a merger should be held, but I've come to the conclusion that TFD is not the place to do it because of the additional pressure/drama such a discussion generates. --Rschen7754 01:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome to start an RfC to shut down the Wikipedia:Templates for discussion system but until you do, and it passes, consensus is that it is what we use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what he was saying and you know it. TfM is for discussing whether templates should be merged, not the intricacies of how the merge is achieved. There's no point suggesting a merge if a merge can't be achieved. That it can be done should be assessed before TfM. That's what I believe he was saying and I agree. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'm somewhat supportive of the concept, it does need to be done carefully. A working sandbox version of the proposed merge would allow arguments to be based on something tangible, rather than claims on what people imagine is or isn't possible/workable/easy-to-use etc. - Evad37 [talk] 02:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Before that can happen we need in this diccusson to decide what should and should not be included. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you've got it backwards. What needs to be done first is to determine if the templates can be merged. There's no point suggesting a merge if it can't be done. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That they can be merged is indisputable. We decide here whether and how to merge them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I dispute your claim and will continue to do sop until you provide an example. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The current state of Infobox Australian road is due to previous discussions re replacing with Infobox road. These discussions have all been extensive and the general consensus was that Infobox Australian road was superior for Australian conditions since it was designed from the ground up for Australian roads. I don't see that this has changed at all and one of the reasons that the template was never replaced was that Australian editors found it easier to use this template. I have no objection to discussing possible replacement but this is really not the place to discuss technicalities in the intricate detail necessary. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the "Luafication" that was discussed last time round? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I'm talking about. Somebody should have followed up the Luafication after the last TfM. The most logical person to do that is the person who started the TfM. Who was that? I forget. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It was - as you well know - me. Your snide comment overlooks the fact that I am not a Lua coder. Instead of personsalising this, and trying to shut down discussion, perhaps you could comment on the merits of the proposal? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have to be a Lua coder to follow up on discussions. You can still initiate discussions, reminding people that the outcome of a particular TfD/TfM was this or that and it hasn't been done. You seem fine with being able to initiate TfM and TfD about templates that use Lua. What's the difference between that and starting a talk page discussion? As for the merits of this proposal, I don't see that it has any without first determining how they can be merged. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose...for now. While I am supportive of merging the two templates together, the suggested Luafication that was discussed 5+ years ago really hasn't happened yet. –Fredddie™ 02:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per the comment before last. There are intricacies that Infobox road doesn't cover that should be accounted for in a merged infobox. Until an example is created of how Infobox road would work on the various types of Australian roads is shown and discussed on the relevant talk page, I'll be in opposition. Mccunicano☕️ 04:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now and move to talk page. This is not the right forum for this discussion. Nothing has changed since the last TfD, and merging into an incomplete rewrite would not be productive. The IBR rewrite was waiting on the Capiunto extension to be deployed, and that has been stalled for a couple of years. Perhaps it's time to pursue the rewrite now using Module:Infobox and convert to Capiunto if/when that's deployed. -happy5214 05:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose due to lack of useful information: 1) Is there a sandbox or draft of how the merged template would be used in a variety of articles that currently use one or the other? 2) Why is this merge proposed but not a merge of ((Infobox street)) before or at the same time? In principle, I would agree that Australia might not be special compared to other English-speaking countries that have a shared infobox. Practice appears to show otherwise at this time. --Scott Davis Talk 10:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I am not seeing any reason why Australian road articles benefit from such a change nor any consideration of the impact on the Australian editor community. An infobox has been developed that mets our needs and in my experience requests for changes to meet Australian needs with generic templates are frequently met with refusal; little wonder we prefer our own templates. I note that the WMF's new strategic plan emphasises the importance of equity in decision making and specifically calls for empowerment of local communities. Kerry (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (my opposition is already noted above). I realised that the comments on this page are generally opposition from Australians who are used to using ((Infobox Australian road)). Having looked more at ((Infobox road)) (and ((Infobox street))) I realised that perhaps the proposal is motivated by a desire to add the map functionality and other fields that Australians take for granted into the other infoboxes through the merger. The Australian box supports Kartographer scalable maps, pushpin maps and custom per-road map images. The "worldwide" one seems to only support an image made specifically for each article. The ability to generate a map (eg in Iowa Highway 100) is possible, but much more complex than to achieve similar in Port Wakefield Road (which deliberately suppresses another generated map). The pushpin maps are pretty much automatic with the coordinates (and customised for smaller roads by
|use_lga_map=). Australians have generally reacted against a perception that the Australian infobox would be taken away and articles would be forced to use the current ((Infobox road)). The proposal is a merge, which should mean that all of the current fields and functions in either box would be available in the new Infobox road. Was your real motivation to surreptitiously bring the Australian features to the rest of the world Andy? --Scott Davis Talk 04:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Clearly the people who are best-placed to have an opinion on this are the editors of Australian road articles, who appear to be rather strongly opposed, and seem to have good reasons for their opposition. It would seem much more sensible to build consensus in the affected editor community, and make sure that a proposed merge can address all relevant concerns, before bringing the matter here for centralized discussion. Ultimately the templates are there to serve the community, not the other way around. -- Visviva (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In the five years since this was last discussed, no members of that project have, so far as I can tell, shown any inclination to resolve this issue there. But no, they are not those best placed, since the other template in this discussion is used across Wikipedia, and not (just) by that project. That's why we have TfD as neutral and centralised venue, for the whole community. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. This has Australia-specific features, including the links to states at the top, the automatic link to Route number#Australia, and the group of relevant links at the bottom that includes links to state-specific lists of highways. "Major suburbs/towns" also doesn't make sense in a lot of the anglophone world, where "suburb" means suburbia, rather than Suburbs and localities (Australia). Merging either forces the Australian roads to lose these parameters or brings a good deal of Australia-specific content into an infobox where it wouldn't make sense. Nyttend (talk) 18:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this relisted? We routinely close discussions with much less input than this, and opposition was almost unanimous. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nyttend: There's still Imzadi1979's comment to take into consideration, you know. ToThAc (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's probably why Nyttend said that opposition was "almost" unanimous. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2020 (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).