Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs) at 22:54, 23 January 2015 (Undid revision 643821630 by DePiep (talk) Don't remove material from my comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

January 22

Template:Infobox academic division

Template:Infobox academic division (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (77 6 16 128 transclusions)

Template:Infobox university (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (19,369 19,464 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox academic division with Template:Infobox university.
A previous TfD to replace Academic Division after replacing instances with the more generic template closed as "no consensus", because some people preferred to insist on a formal merge proposal rather than discuss the merits of the template in question.

It is redundant to the generic template (which already serves for faculties, schools, colleges, and other types of parts of universities, which currently use the AD template).

The parameters unique to the AD template are |canton=, |prefecture=, |region= (the documentation of the University template says |province= is for "all other administrative subdivisions"), |alumni=, and |symbol= (the latter pair are not specific to academic divisions, and may apply to any University or sub-set of one).

Here is an example replacement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have replaced the transclusions of the AD template which do not use the parameters listed above. Further investigation shows that |symbol= is unused. |alumni= is used in the remaining six transclusions, but its meaning is not clear (one is footnoted "The number of living alumni as of the year 2012"; others not, and most are uncited). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Please use |type=sidebar with {{Tfm}} when nominating infoboxes in the future. 31.153.43.216 (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Keeping it in Infobox academic division gives a better semantic meaning. – nafSadh did say 02:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Merge. Although semantically these infoboxes would appear to have different functions, the nomination shows that they have essentially the same parameters and can thus be merged painlessly. Infobox academic division should be maintained as a redirect to Infobox university. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Merge per my !vote in the previous discussion (keeping this as a redirect) —PC-XT+ 04:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC) 04:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Merge per TTO, the name difference is no reason for keeping a template that shares many parameters with university and is substantially a recent fork of the earlier template.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• Merge per Andy. This is similar to {{Infobox politician}}. Would make things less confusing. Bgwhite (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I created this specifically for its semantic value, but the intention was to eventually extend the template with other details specific to such divisions (which I've yet to consider or enumerate, unfortunately). My intention was to merge university and college infoboxes to {{infobox university}} (as has already been done with some infoboxes), and also to merge infoboxes for all academic divisions (medical and law schools, faculties, departments, etc.) to {{Infobox academic division}}, which I began with the creation of these template redirects. Mindmatrix 17:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • There were more "parts of university" using {{infobox university}} than the nominated template, even before its nomination. The semantic value can be derived from the presence and contents of |parent=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Why did you replace all uses of this template before resolution of this discussion? The point of such discussions is to come to a consensus, then act on that consensus, not to preemptively act on a proposal then have to undo such changes if consensus doesn't agree with that proposal. Mindmatrix 17:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Nobody did. However, since the template is demonstrably redundant, many instances were replaced with a more suitable, generic template. The existence of a TfD does not preclude this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
• Aside: infoboxes in general could benefit from separating location-related info into a separate template or module to deal with naming of subnational jurisdictions (that is, whether to use state, province, canton, prefecture, etc.) and their display in the infobox. Mindmatrix 17:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose merger I have to agree with our colleagues who believe that usability trumps minor technical issues or unnecessary consistency. I understand how the templates overlap but it seems like it's much more important to ensure they remain useable by editors than to combine them simply because they can be combined. ElKevbo (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • In what way do you believe that the more generic template less usable? Indeed, the reverse is true; the nominated template's only unique field in use has such poor usability that no-one seems to know what it is for. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Not enough valid arguments showing reason to merge. --NotWillyWonka (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The valid argument is that the template is redundant to another; this has been demonstrated unequivocally. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose merge per ElKevbo's rationale above. This is more template merging for the sake of template merging. Sometimes a specifically tailored template is superior to a generic one-size-fits-all model. The nominator might receive less opposition and save himself a great of time and aggravation if he would simply run such proposals by the relevant WikiProjects before dropping them here at TfD -- he might even receive some helpful advice as to what could be easily and appropriately merged from the viewpoint of editors who use the templates on a regular basis. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Dirtlawyer1's comments make no points in favour of keeping two templates; why a template currently used in only six articles is supposedly needed, nor why the more generic one is "superior" to the one which works in over nineteen thousand other cases. His procedural comments seem to be overspill from another discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Hey, Andy: guess again. I'm a long-time member of WikiProject Universities. Please stop trying to discredit other editors who oppose your proposed deletions and merges. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Your membership of that project does not refute my point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
        • And what is your "point," Andy? I found this TfD discussion because I keep Infobox university on my watch list to prevent tampering by vandals and ill-advised changes by inexperienced editors. You have a well-established pattern/bias of always wanting to consolidate/merge templates into larger, multi-purpose, one-size-fits-all master templates, sometimes without understanding the purposes and uses of those templates; pointing that out is fair game. I happen to believe that in many instances, smaller, more specialized templates that are tailored to their specific uses are often easier to use and don't create problems of inexperienced editors using inappropriate template options. You clearly have a different opinion, but my opinion is no less valid than yours, and your compulsive need to answer every !vote and opinion opposed to your merge proposals does not advance your TfD proposals more often than not. More is sometimes less, a lesson you would do well to absorb in these discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • It's only used on six articles because you replaced all other uses of this template before resolution of this discussion, as I noted in a comment above. This is one of the primary reasons I objected to replacement before resolution, because it could then be used to skew the discussion by stating how few articles use it. Mindmatrix 22:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, such replacement is evidence to the assertion that the template is redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Unhelpful, get the ugly spam off of pages RoyalMate1 12:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You appear to be commenting on the TfD notification, not the proposal to merge and do away with the redundant template. Do you have a view on that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I see. Yes, I oppose the merger, it seems to be independent enough to not warrant a redundancy in terms of templates. RoyalMate1 03:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Wish I'd known about the academic division infobox earlier, it would be very useful on some of the articles I edit. I've found infoboxes that attempt to be "jack of all trades" to be overstuffed with criteria and virtually unusable. Universities and university divisions are different animals with markedly different identifying information; keeping the templates separate allows for this and is conducive to editing. I agree with others above that this seems to be template merging for its own sake. --TorriTorri(/_contribs) 21:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Torritorri: How is {{Infobox university}} not useful for your purpose? What parameters for "markedly different identifying information" are needed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This merger does not seem reasonable simply because academic divisions are different from universities, and while currently the infoboxes are similar, a better solution would be to flesh out the academic divisions infobox so that it could be used on pertinent articles to provides more specificity. VivaLaPandaz (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "academic divisions are different from universities" As noted above, There were more "parts of university" using {{infobox university}} than the nominated template, even before its nomination. Infobox university already serves the function of showing data for universities and parts of universities. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This template is distinctly needed, a merge would suffice although there could then be problems with Good Faith Editors filling all fields for new institutions/universities and making a mess of existing/new articles, the converse could also occur but it just seems to make more sense to me to keep them separate to avoid confusion. Chris ☮ 23:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Merge, unnecessarily duplicative and as noted above, does not do anything that {{Infobox university}} doesn't already do. -- Visviva (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose University pages almost all contain this infobox. This page should have an infobox because that is Misplaced Pages's format. Furthermore, I do not see any gain in removing this box - it would just make the page look less like it was for a university. Please provide examples of reputable universities with no info boxes to support your argument to remove the box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.16.56.99 (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You misunderstand the proposal, which is to merge two similar infoboxes. no article would lose it infobox as a result Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. University is an institution with which "divisions" are affiliated, not the other way around (for example, Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences is operated by the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University). Try not to engage in busy work. Poeticbent talk 17:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know what this deletion request is about, but I don't think it's a good idea for "this template is being considered for deletion" at the top of infoboxes which would lead to casual readers thinking there was an error on the website. Ritchie333 21:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Ritchie333: That's a common aspect of all TfDs, not just this one. Please raise the matter at Misplaced Pages talk:Templates for discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisted as a result of deletion review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

• Explanation - This re-listing/re-opening of the 8 December 2014 TfD discussion is the third TfD listing of Template:Infobox academic division since 29 November 2014:
  • 29 November 2014 TfD/deletion: Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:Infobox academic division;
  • 8 December 2014 TfD/merge: Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 8#Template:Infobox academic division;
  • 8 January 2015 Deletion Review: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8; and
  • 22 January 2015 TfD/merge re-listing/re-opening: This TfD discussion.

I hope this provides a road map to anyone who is a first-time participant in this series of discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

As noted above, the first nomination "closed as "no consensus", because some people preferred to insist on a formal merge proposal". The 8 December listing was the requested merger proposal. This was wrongly closed (as the 8 January DRV unanimously agreed). The current discussion is a relisting of the (thus ongoing) second nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Andy, Dirtlawyer1 provided a neutral roadmap. No need for you to inject judgements. The discussion you try to fire here is in the wrong place. And you know that. -DePiep (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I supported the close of the first nomination to reopen as a merge proposal, which was then closed, reviewed and relisted here. I don't see how that is somehow a judgement of PotW. He fought against both closes, and only reluctantly opened the second discussion. The use of wrongly doesn't negate the fact that the DRV made that decision, though with things this heated, something like that can easily be construed. Almost anything seems to be easily construed. —PC-XT+ 23:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That was not a "neutral roadmap", it was a fallacious description of events, which I have refuted with the facts, not "judgements". Here is the correct place to do so, since here is where the bogus statements were made. Now get the beam out of your own eye. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

In some ways, this one seems more neutral than the one in the third (out of process) TfD, collapsed below. While it is still affected by the confusion of that section, I think this was done in good faith. Anyway, since it is incorrect, and someone else agrees this is the wrong place to discuss corrections, I'll try hiding it. —PC-XT+ 13:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I undid the collapse upon request on my talk page. —PC-XT+ 14:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - The transclusion counts have been updated to reflect reality as of 13:30 UTC, 22 January 2015. TfD discussion participants, specifically including the nominator, are respectfully requested not to replace instances of the subject, Template:Infobox academic division, while this discussion remains open. Doing so could be construed as disruptive editing, an attempt to pre-empt the merits of this discussion, and to game the system. Such replacements will be reverted until the conclusion of this TfD. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • What Dirtlawyer1 refers to is the mass reverting of the replacement of this clearly-redundant template. The only 6 (six!) copies that were not replaced are those using the inadequately-documented |alumni=. The allegations of disruption are pure FUD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Andy, please do not engage in personalized commentary ("pure FUD"), and please do not attempt to "orphan" this template while the TfD remains open. Furthermore, if this template were "clearly redundant" then your arguments would probably sway more participants; as it stands two thirds of participants disagree with you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
      • This is templates for discussion Anyone - including me - is at liberty to discuss the template, its uses, and claims you make about it here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Andy, about your orphaning edits Dirtlawyer1 wrote "Doing so could be construed as disruptive editing". That is a correct statement of fact. You responded by changing topic (clearly, orphaning is not discussing), and so you are in the wrong. I note that this reopening was from your request, so you too should obey good editorship. All in all, towards the DRV you have shown proven that you know perfectly well the rules. Nu use the rules if they work against you. And, of course, keep out the "accusations" diversion into muddy tactics. -DePiep (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose This is for units within universities, so tagging them with the full University infobox would be inaccurate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The point is that {{Infobox university}} is also for "units within universities"; and, as described at length above, the parameters are largely the same. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    • One of the common points of those who oppose your proposed merge, Andy, is that we believe that academic subunits, including universities' constituent colleges, schools and other subunits would be better served by a simpler template, with fewer optional parameters, that omits the 15 to 20 optional parameters that are rarely, if ever, necessary or desirable for the subunit infoboxes, and includes a small handful of options that are specific to law, med or business schools, but not universities generally. There is nothing to be gained by creating a single all-in-one template, with its potential for misuse when a simpler template would better serve the needs of constituent colleges, schools, faculties, etc. For the primary writers and maintainers of these articles, there is no advantage to such a merge. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
      • , No, that was not "one of the common points of those who oppose the proposed merge". As can be seen above, most opposers did so on the misunderstanding that the "university" infobox does not also serve for articles about "parts of universities" (it does); because thay thought the template(s) woldl be deleted without replacement; or to remove the TfD notice from articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect: We don't need a bunch of balkanized templates where parameters are virtually identical and the few that aren't can simply be aded. Keeps things much better organized and simpler as well. Montanabw 20:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That's theoretically, if at all. Would you care to reply to the commenter her that actually use the templates? -DePiep (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I use the templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I said this in the procedurally closed section below, regarding the keeping of redundant templates: I happen to agree that sometimes smaller templates are better, but these problems can often be solved in documentation, if the templates are close enough that changes would affect each other, anyway. If these templates would usually not be updated at the same time, I could reasonably see them either being split into some kind of module things or kept separate. Documentation can have code to copy for each usage, and otherwise explain the differences. I don't really care about multiple front-ends, if the editors using them find them convenient. I don't think it wise to require these templates to be updated separately if a change affects both of them. This can be solved by sharing code, which can be done in a merge or by using either Lua or template modules. A merge seems the best fit in this case. —PC-XT+ 23:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox academic division (procedurally closed)