From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 25 June 27 >

June 26

Template:Infobox disputed islands

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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:Infobox islands. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Template:Infobox disputed islands with Template:Infobox islands.
Very little differences in the two templates. Section can be added to {{ Infobox islands}} to accommodate country claims and perhaps a banner at the top to denote it as disputed if deemed necessary. – Aidan721 ( talk) 20:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Merge. I've changed my mind since 2013. No clearly-stated reason to keep them separate. The merger looks quite easy, since {{ infobox islands}} supports multiple country sections (it did in 2013 too, but I possibly didn't realise it because it was buried in the documentation); it looks like it should just need a single additional parameter to add a "claimed by" heading in the appropriate place. This, that and the other ( talk) 00:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply
@ This, that and the other: See my comments below. Unless the same detail can be included in the merging, they should not be merged. The additional detail is important in remaining neutral in presenting the information. This is the exact same reason I (and others) used in opposing this merge in the past, and no one has ever bothered addressing it. Instead, people simply wait a few years and try to merge them again without addressing the concerns regarding the loss of information. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment. The 4th testcase shows how a "claimed by" heading can be added with the current parameters of {{ Infobox disputed islands}}. Please feel free to add additional test cases or take a look at Template:Infobox islands/sandbox and ping me if any errors come up. – Aidan721 ( talk) 13:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Aidan721: The 4th testcase loses detail for the claimants who aren't administering the islands, drops the coastline information, removes the "Disputed" part at the top of the infobox, and changes the color change at the top (the green). The color change and coastline information aren't vital (though the coastline information is important for a summary, I think), but the other items remove information important to include in the infobox summary if we want to remain neutral. Removing the detail puts an emphasis on the country that controls the islands and relegates to an afterthought the claims by anyone else (they're just a comma-separated list). ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Nihonjoe: see now. {{ Infobox islands/styles.css}} will have to be updated to add the green background to the top. All information is present now; however, I think many of the country subdivision information is overkill but that can be discussed another time. – Aidan721 ( talk) 20:24, 1 July 2022 (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).

Template:Infobox farm

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno ( talk) 19:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Template:Infobox farm with Template:Infobox park.
The low use farm template is redundant to the park template. Apart for variations on image, address, dimension and mapping parameters, and |disestablished=, all of which can equally apply to both subjects, the only parameter unique to the farm template is |produces=. We don't need a whole new infobox for that. The advantages of merging such similar templates are described in my essay on infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Strong oppose. Nothing has changed since this was last discussed; these topics are vastly different, despite currently-implemented parameters. Nor is this a common-sense grouping that will make editors' lives any easier; quite the contrary in fact. ɱ (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Don't merge. Different topics for two different things. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 23:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per Ɱ and WikiCleanerMan. These are two completely different things, with completely different needs. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. They may have similar parameters but they are completely different subjects. -- chris_j_wood ( talk) 12:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong oppose per Ɱ and WikiCleanerMan. Two different land uses. I couldn't possibly imagine the logic in merging the two infoboxes. It would be like merging bicycles with sewing machines. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 11:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    • It would not, because the parameters for bicycles and sewing machines are - unlike in this case, as demonstrated - not the same. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, and I urge the nominator to take a break from these merge nominations for, say, one year to clear their head. Abductive ( reasoning) 10:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. These are too different in the real world for this to be a logical grouping, even if the parameters are analogous. - McGhiever ( talk) 21:15, 1 July 2022 (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).

Template:Infobox themed area

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2022 July 11. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 06:21, 11 July 2022 (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).

Template:Moon cabinet infobox

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗ plicit 14:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Single-use template used on Moon Jae-In's article. But instead of substitution on there, it should be outright deleted as the information on here is presented in list format as part of the article space of Cabinet of Moon Jae-in. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 00:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:13, 26 June 2022 (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).

Template:SZM color

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno ( talk) 19:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Unused color template. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Shenzhen Metro. Gonnym ( talk) 13:58, 26 June 2022 (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).

Template:FC Desna Chernihiv sections

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno ( talk) 19:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply

In fact, BC Chernihiv (basketball), Burevisnyk-ShVSM Chernihiv (volleyball) and Spartak ShVSM Chernihiv (women's football) have nothing to do with FC Desna Chernihiv (football), not legally affiliated with it and are not its sections or "active departments". These clubs are different legal entities with different owners. The template is essentially disinformation, its existence is not justified by anything. Dunadan Ranger ( talk) 11:50, 26 June 2022 (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).

Template:Infobox magazine

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC) reply

The line between newspapers and magazines is increasingly blurred, doubly so in their online forms. These infoboxes have many key parameters in common, and those that are not common to both (and are not simply synonyms) easily could be. The advantages of merging such similar templates are described in my essay on infobox consolidation. Obviously, whatever the new template is called, the unused name(s) should be kept as a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment: Our citation system differentiates between {{ cite news}}, {{ cite magazine}}, and {{ cite journal}}. It is useful to have consistency aligning cite templates with infoboxes. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 04:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC) reply
CS1. CS2 not so much, and anyway, these are all called periodicals on the backend, if not somewhere in the documentation. Izno ( talk) 19:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment Ahead of merging the three, what would we name the merged template? Something along the lines of infobox publication, but that'd be too ambiguous. Vortex ( talk) 10:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Ignore the above, I can't read. Do you think periodicals would be easily identifiable? Vortex ( talk) 10:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Oppose In what way are magazines and newspapers the same thing? -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 16:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    • @ WikiCleanerMan: In what way are they not? And more to the point, what differences do we need the two infoboxes to have? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply
      • You should prove it. After all when one makes a nomination like this, you have to prove what lines are being blurred. If magazines and newspapers were the same thing, clearly Time Magazine is a newspaper. And The New York Times is known for being a magazine. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 12:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply
        • You're asking me to prove something that I have not asserted. What I have said is that "The line between newspapers and magazines is increasingly blurred, doubly so in their online forms"; that the two infoboxes are almost identical in their properties; and that we don't need two infoboxes to cover the subjects. I also asked you "what differences do we need the two infoboxes to have?", and you have not replied. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose two blatantly separate things Mausebru the Peruvian ( talk, contibs)`
    • The separation is far from "blatant", and, as noted in the nomination, "The line between newspapers and magazines is increasingly blurred, doubly so in their online forms". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Oppose Magazines and Newspapers are not the same and the templates should be kept seperate. A newspaper like L'Acadie Nouvelle is a very different beast than a magazine like Rolling Stone. See also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_9#Template:Infobox_journal, which also applies here. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 06:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, there are differences at the opposite ends of the spectrum. But, like any spectrum, there is a blurring at the centre, You make no argument as to why the templates should be kept separate; nor do you say what parameters need to be different between the infoboxes. Infobox journal is not included in this proposal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Oppose Magazines and newspapers need separate infoboxes. And it is not needed because it would not produce any advantage, but it would yield unnecessary, undesired and incorrect representations. Egeymi ( talk) 20:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Create. How about creating {{ Infobox periodical}} and then convert {{ Infobox magazine}} and {{ Infobox newspaper}} into a customized wrapper of {{ Infobox periodical}} so that the two infoboxes can have more consistency in style and ordering, while not introducing new parameters to the two infoboxes that are not applicable. – Aidan721 ( talk) 15:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Support creation of {{ Infobox periodical}} wrapper per Aidan721. Allows for the best of both worlds, namely consistency of parameter nomenclature and specificity of the different kinds of publications. DigitalIceAge ( talk) 04:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose – magazines and newspapers are not the same thing. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 04:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: From a not too deep look into these two templates, it would seem that they share a lot of similar parameters (though named differently). If possible (@ Pigsonthewing) a mockup of how a merge would look can help with this discussion. I'm also leaning to agree with Aiden that another possible outcome would be to create a parent template for both. That option would be best if there is a large section of different parameters, but not if they use almost the same exact ones. If a merge or wrapper happens, I support renaming the parameter names to follow WP:TMPG with parameter names using underscores to separate words (like Template:Infobox magazine does, mostly). Gonnym ( talk) 09:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - These " List of manga magazines" are not newspapers. They are focused on demographics/genres with content aimed at a certain age groups. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Support merge (preferably with the title {{ Infobox periodical}}) – There is nothing about the subjects that would suggest that the manner in which their infobox content is presented should be different. While the oppose comments rightly point out that there is a difference between newspapers and magazines, none of them have addressed how that affects infobox content. We can recognize the difference between the two forms of publication while using a common infobox, just as novels and monographs both use {{ Infobox book}}.

    Infobox consolidation provides for greater consistency in presentation of content and better facilitates template maintenance. Given that these are both forms of periodical and the infoboxes' parameters largely overlap, it's an easy decision. Graham ( talk) 03:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply

    That's because nobody has given a visual on what this new merged template would look like. I'm fine with a merger here if all of the parameters display the same information in the infobox. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    These infoboxes are not so complex that "I can't see what it looks like" seems like a valid concern. -- Izno ( talk) 19:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Knowledgekid87: Are there any conceivable changes that you might take issue with? Or anything in particular that you would want to see or not want to see in a merged template? Graham ( talk) 04:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose: Magazine and newspaper aren’t same. Give Up ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nomination. -- Izno ( talk) 19:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Meta-comment – Given that the discussion really only picked up just as we were closing in on the one-week mark, can I suggest that the discussion be relisted for another week? Graham ( talk) 04:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    There is clear no consensus for the merge. No need to drag this on for longer. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Repeating "Magazine and newspaper aren't same" which most of the opposing arguments do, is not a compelling argument in my opinion, as no one said they were. What the merge said was that the Infoboxes are the same. As votes aren't only a vote counter, I don't see this discussion as a clear no consensus for the merge. Gonnym ( talk) 08:23, 5 July 2022 (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).
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_June_26&oldid=1097522122"