Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:29, 17 November 2014

November 15

Template:Greater Southampton locations

Template:Greater Southampton locations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Southampton suburbs map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Greater Southampton locations with Template:Southampton suburbs map.
Superseded by new template using a better map. Technically it's not a like-for-like replacement (the new version only shows locations inside of the Southampton boundary whereas this one shows more, and distinguishes between the two). This version of the template isn't used in the mainspace any more - it was replaced with {{Southampton suburbs map}} some time ago. WaggersTALK 15:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• comment so you are proposing deletion of Template:Greater Southampton locations and not merging anything? not sure why this is a merger proposal. Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ 21:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Would be good to have clarification from User:Waggers. Plastikspork _―Œ 21:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the slow response; yes, it's more a delete & redirect than a merger. WaggersTALK 22:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

in that case, I say "replace/redirect". Frietjes (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Usr

Template:Usr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant fork of {{Ussc}}. Only 14 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Replace and delete per nom. "template:Usr" can be repointed to template:user as the common meaning of "usr" or be left a redlink, since USR means U.S. Robotics corporation. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm nearly certain the intent there was to associate itself with the the pre-sanctioned era of the current U.S. Supreme Court Reporter to the one in use today. Early on in U.S "case history", the rulings, etc. of the Supreme Court were contracted out & published under serials such as U.S. Reports or the U.S. Reporter. Eventually the current system "federalized" the that previous era's scheme & product. The differences between case citations based in that era compared to modern day case citations may be the only nuance worth noting here - otherwise I don't see the harm of killing off the current 14 uses. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Don't delete - the point of this template is that it's different, which the description makes clear. It's for Maroonbook systems of citation (mainly, without the periods, for instance, in 41 US 395 (1926)). It's a subtle difference which the nominator might have missed. So, not a 'fork', or redundant. Wikidea 13:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I didn't miss the difference. It's either too trivial to be needed, and can be done away with, or else can be included in the more common template, by way of a switch. By very definition, it's a fork. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's a comparison of the templates:

{{ussc|source=f|543|405|2005}}

543 U.S. 405 (2005)

{{usr|source=f|543|405|2005}}

Template:Usr

We don't need whole new template to change from "U.S." to "US". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

 Comment:: if all that is needed is a way to turn the full stops (periods) on and off, that can easily be done by way of a parameter within {{ussc}}. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I created a version of {{ussc}} at {{ussc/sandbox}} in which the periods can be turned off using |noperiods=on or |noperiods=yes. Testcases are at Template:Ussc/testcases. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox California State Legislature

Template:Infobox California State Legislature (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox legislature}}. Only 11 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Nothing redundant seen, apart from two words in the template title. No merge mapping provided. -DePiep (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox beef

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

Redundant to {{Infobox prepared food}}, as shown in this edit - indeed, the latter template offers better data fields. Only 29 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox United States District Court case

Template:Infobox United States District Court case (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Infobox template with 120 transclusions, originally created as a fork of {{Infobox court case}}, to which it is redundant, as demonstrated here. A previous discussion in April this year reached no consensus, but since then the two alternative templates have been merged at {{Infobox court case}}. A redirect would allow the US-DC-specific name to be retained. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that {{Infobox U.S. Courts of Appeals case}} is already a wrapper for {{Infobox court case}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Merge by redirect into {{Infobox court case}}. I have completed the parameter comparision that is here. All parameters from the TfD'ed template now present. My conclusion: A redirect would not malform or misrepresent any parameter (and the target template has a nicer layout using headers etc.). -DePiep (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox criminal organization

Template:Infobox criminal organization (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox criminal organization}} {{Infobox organization}} (into which any unique and required parameters should be merged). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: The template can't be redundant to itself. Which other template is {{Infobox criminal organization}} redundant to? Jarble (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that; fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep or speedy keep. Incomplete nomination. Nom does not provide parameter mapping or any base for equalness. Don't leave it to others to solve or prove. -DePiep (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox U.S. legislation

Template:Infobox U.S. legislation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Infobox U.S. legislation with Template:Infobox legislation.
Redundancy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose -- I don't see how a merger would provide any increase in benefit to the reader nor any increase in the value of the resulting work(s). The U.S. is not only unique enough in it's bicameral, co-equal, Federal legislative branch of government to warrant its own information "blocks" and approach by itself but the serialization, codification and citation of that body's statutory output is also convoluted enough (e.g. U.S. Code, Statutes at Large et. al) to merit it's own information scheme as well.

  The claim of "redundancy" might be appropriate at the technical, template level but is woefully lacking when understanding & working with the actual content at hand.-- George Orwell III (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - George Orwell III hits the nails on the head. The U.S. legislative process is sufficiently unique to warrant a separate infobox. And to add another example to the list that George has, I'll add that the U.S. legislative process also distinctly involves executive vetoes and subsequent legislative overrides. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - agree that the US system is so distinct that it warrants a separate template. Also, if there is only one template, there may be a tendency for it to be US-centric, becoming difficult to use for non-US legal situations. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: The redundancy is indeed at the technical level; the issue is not the "uniqueness" or otherwise of the US system, but whether or not we need one or two templates to display the relevant information. The benefits of removing or redirecting (merging) redundant templates are widely understood; and include a reduction in the maintenance overhead, and lowering the cognitive load for editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply: I think you're making too many unsupported assumptions/inferences. Template:Infobox U.S. Legislation is a one off call made directly to Template:Infobox, the mother/parent of all Infoboxes. How is that redundant? What is pointless is making it a redirect to another template that is also a one off call being made directly to the same base Infobox template -- in effect making it twice removed from the parent instead of just once directly. There is no redundancy issue here that cannot be overcome with simple adjustments in categorization if anything at all. And normally I'd agree to the premise of a possible reduction in maintenance overhead if at least the css and/or inline stylings matched up -- but they don't in this case. I would think that fork alone would increase the amount wrangling needed to maintain the distinct styling for both viens in a single template never mind the difference gap in actual utilization world-wide.

    "Merging" something like Template:Infobox UK Legislation might make far more sense to do; not only because the rendering of the two are nearly identical layout & style wise, but much of the parameters, labeling, content and their default values better align with other legislative bodies (ca, nz, au, etc.) more so than they ever would with the U.S's. I shouldn't have to be familiar with the intricacies of the majority of the world's legislative output just to be able to navigate a single one - a rather unique one at that (so much for "cognitive load"). The fact the UK one handles Wales, Scotland, Ireland and the like ultimately goes against the premise that consolidation automatically usurps "uniqueness" at the end of the day too... or somehow will increase value over the long haul as well.

    Sorry. I just don't think its worth doing. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

    • The redundancy is in having a specific, (in this case US) template to do a job that an existing, more generic template can do. I note that you advance no argument that the more generic template cannot do the job. There is absolutely no need to use different styles; indeed, unifying style is another argument in favour, and advantage, of merging. The UK template could be merged also, but that's a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Just because a so-called "more generic" template can be made to reproduce the current output with enough diffusion and some effort does not automatically make it worth doing. I made the case - and have a small consensus (so far) - that the "uniqueness" of the U.S. legislative system and their legislative output meets inherent notability to the point where leaving it to it's own 'puddle of water in the larger sea' makes far more sense than demoting it would - both at the future usability level and the current familiarity level - in this specific case. Making it all "look the same" doesn't help matters for those first landing here on legislative articles that happen to share or have similar titles/purposes either.

        In addition, I don't appreciate being 'bold texted' by somebody who is suppose to be running a formal, constructive proposal. I really didn't expect the usual User talk page roustabout for simply voicing my opposition here. So without an apology first, I see no reason to comment any further either way. Good Luck. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

        • "well established...". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:InfoBox Crime

Template:InfoBox Crime (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use. Orphaned. Non-functioning. Redundant to {{Infobox event}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• I created this new template, my first time ever to create. apologies for any mistakes. I tried to use it in one article but it didnt work. I have no idea why it didnt work. I am still learning how to create infobox that actually work. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdhillon (talk • contribs) 19:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Vdhillon: No problem; but in future it's best to experiment in a sandbox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox university chancellor

Template:Infobox university chancellor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox officeholder}} (into which any unique parameters should be merged). Could be made a wrapper. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support deletion per Pigs. Tony (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox university faculty

Template:Infobox university faculty (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox university}} (into which the one or two unique parameters should be merged; and to which {{Infobox university school}} already redirects). Only 10 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Oxford college

Template:Infobox Oxford college (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox university}} (into which the one or two unique parameters should be merged). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: this infobox contains unique parameters that would be lost. Note that these colleges are not universities in the classic sense: they are constituent and sovereign parts of a larger university. Lincolnite (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The nomination says "into which the one or two unique parameters should be merged", so the claim that they "would be lost" is clearly bogus. Note also that {{Infobox university}} is the target of the {{Infobox college}} redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    • It is better to keep common templates uncluttered by fields which will apply to very few other articles using them. Plus new IOxbridge fields might well be added in he future. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
      • That hypothetical new fields might be added in future is usually not seen as a valid reason to keep a template (and none have been added for well over four years). Likewise, we generally don't fork templates (nor keep redundant equivalents) for just (in this case) 57 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Then first have these parameters added there. What happens if this template is deleted and the addition it not done? -DePiep (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• oppose, perhaps merge with {{infobox residential college}}, but that's not what is being proposed. Frietjes (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. Can not be deleted when parameters are not served elsewhere. "should be merged " we cannot use when deleting this one. Nom claim for "redundancy" is not correct. Or else, Pigsonthewing, what did you have in mind for the merge process? (This is not the first time we met this). -DePiep (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Cambridge college

Template:Infobox Cambridge college (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox university}} (into which the one or two unique parameters should be merged). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, as Oxford. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • See refutation of the "Oxford" objection, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• oppose, perhaps merge with {{infobox residential college}}, but that's not what is being proposed. Frietjes (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. First have the parameters added before TfD. A TfD on template A can not decide on changing template B. See also above, Oxford. -DePiep (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox academic division

Template:Infobox academic division (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox university}} (into which the one or two unique parameters should be merged; and to which {{Infobox university school}} already redirects). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox medical college

Template:Infobox medical college (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox university}}, to which {{Infobox college}} redirects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I see that the template is being used in several articles. How to map the fields in this template with an alternate template? Also there are a few specific fields in this such as 'directorate'. What do we do about them? -- Sundar 14:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The only parameters without a direct equivalent seem to be |telephone=, which should not be in an infobox per WP:NOTDIRECTORY; |ds= (meaning "deputy superintendent"), for which, if it is not added to the more generic template, there are |head= and |head_label=; |alumni_website=, which arguably also should not be present, but which could be added to the generic template if a need exists; and some style overrides which appear to be (and should be) deprecated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for clarifying, Andy Mabbett. Will the remaining fields be renamed appropriately using a bot? -- Sundar 11:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox law school

Template:Infobox law school (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox university}} (into which the one or two unique parameters should be merged). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – has 3 unique parameters which are particularly useful; a university is an entirely different type of entity; given the nominations for so many other school templates with unique parameters the university template would become even more unwieldy. – S. Rich (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per S. Rich. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: The unique parameters are |bar pass rate, |aba profile= and |ranking=. The latter is equally applicable to universities in general, to colleges, and to other types of faculty. There is no point in having a separate template just for the other two (nor indeed all three) parameters. A "university" may be a different type of entity, but the template {{Infobox university}} is already used for universities, colleges and other types of higher and further education institutions. Redirects to it include {{Infobox college}} and {{Infobox university school}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• split the law school specific information into a "module template". Frietjes (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox tribhuvan university

Template:Infobox tribhuvan university (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox tribhuvan university}} {{Infobox university}}. Only two transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

not surprising it is redundant to itself. so do nothing? Frietjes (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox college swim team

Template:Infobox college swim team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox swim team}}. Only 14 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

oppose for now. a better idea would be to merge all NCAA sports team templates. Frietjes (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Delta Sigma Theta Founders

Template:Delta Sigma Theta Founders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary vertical navbox; mostly red links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

rewrite as a {{navbox}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:FA current month Calendar

Template:FA current month Calendar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

only used once. Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Years in Indian states (2000-2013)

Template:Years in Indian states (2000-2013) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

only generates redlinks since there is only one YYYY in state articles for 2000-2013, which is 2011 in Kerala and is already linked in the see also section in 2011 in India. Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Iran year nav

Template:Iran year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and duplicates existing navigation. Frietjes (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Years in Zambia

Template:Years in Zambia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:South Vietnam year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Djibouti year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Sinergia

Template:Sinergia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Insufficient navbox that doesn't improve navigation over the primary article, Sinergia. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 02:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)