Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 7 March 9 >

March 8

[edit]

Template:Infobox California State Legislature

[edit]
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overly intricate template, transclusions of which are easily replaceable by {{Infobox legislative session}}. I've replaced one to demonstrate. Alakzi (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that at the previous discussion there was disagreement over the merging of additional "time" parameters. I believe {{plainlist}} to be able to handle that use case adequately (see |chamber1_leader2= in my replacement above). Alakzi (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also, also note that at the previous discussion, two editors hesitated to support a merge on account of the format of the original proposal. I don't see any good reason that we can't discuss the addition of these parameters to {{Infobox legislative session}}, despite that the nom does not mention the word "merge". Alakzi (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:HubLife

[edit]
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template for a deleted band. Only one entry goes anywhere other than a location but that is to a newly created article of an unrelated person. With the exception of the main deleted article, the other entries were never created in fact this is the only extant creation of the user from over 2 years ago.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Canadian government department

[edit]
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Canadian government department (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox government agency}}. Some Canadian departments, like the Department of National Defence, already use that one. I've replaced one transclusion to demonstrate. Alakzi (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Col-1

[edit]
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Col-1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

pointless to use columns if there is only one column. Frietjes (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was partially support merge. There is general support to merge these templates, but it's not clear exactly how that will be accomplished. Assuming that this can be done in fairly straightforward manner, then there is support for a merger. However, there is a desire that at least some of the old syntax would be supported, so the best path forward is probably to rewrite most of the templates to use a common main "backend" template. Once that is accomplished, it should be clear how trivial (or non-trivial) the individual frontend templates are, and whether or not they can be made into redirects, while still retaining any important functionality/syntax. Please continue the discussion elsewhere. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Interlanguage link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Interlanguage link multi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Interlanguage link forced (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Interlanguage link Wikidata (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Link-interwiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Red Wikidata link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging this family of related templates, in which there is a great deal of redundancy and duplication, and a small degree of unnecessary stylistic variation, as well as inconsistency in naming and parameter ordering. We need to take a bold approach to resolve these inconsistencies, and to provide the necessary output format(s) while reducing the bewildering choice currently offered to editors.

In particular, {{Interlanguage link}} is utterly redundant to {{Interlanguage link multi}}:

Charles Darwin [fr] ({{illm|Charles Darwin (botanist)|lt=Charles Darwin|fr|Charles Darwin}}) ≈
Charles Darwin [fr] ({{ill|fr|Charles Darwin (botanist)|Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin}})

Please see the previous discussion, which I have closed in order to discuss all the affected templates. (Notifying Magnus Manske — Jane023 — Michael Bednarek — Margin1522 — Peter coxhead — Jc86035 — Dirtlawyer1: from that discussion.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I inserted a break into the illm/ill comparison, to align the examples for easier comparison by eye. --Thnidu (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge (into {{Interlanguage link multi}}) per nominator. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice. Rolling them all in to one seems like the sensible thing to do, but I'm not sure TfD is a sufficiently broad platform to discuss this. When these templates change, the way we do interlanguage links effectivly changes, and that is a MOS issue I guess. Before I comment further, what are the current usecases for making an interlanguage link to an article that has a title on en.wiki? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean as done currently by {{Interlanguage link forced}}? I have no idea, and we may need to do away with that functionality - but it does have 205 tranclusions; for example the last entry in John Woo#Other works (blue link) or the first sentence of Jay Chou#Personal life (red link). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. I think the entire thing is un-useful and should be deleted, and its functionality not ported to a merged template. But if that's what stands in the way of a merge, sure, port it under a force=true parameter or something. {{Interlanguage link multi}} does seem to do everything the other templates do as well, other than the Wikidata Redlink resonator functionality. For that, I think it's best to have an additional paramter resonator=true which toggles visibility. At first, we could make that dependent on the presence of a WD parameter in the invocation, but I can also imagine it would be possible to automatically derive a Q value from the linked other language link. So for the people who like when participants in a discussion use bold markup for part of their comments: merge resonator parameter into {{Interlanguage link multi}}, delete {{Interlanguage link forced}}, retiring the functionality entirely (but I can live with adding a force=true parameter if we need that for consensus to merge), and either make the rest into convenience wrappers, or just redirect them (with a preference for just redirecting, but if people are used to the ill format/positional parameter order, I don't mind accommodating that). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Pigsonthewing: I think what you are suggesting is a sensible and productive approach, and I support it generally. Frankly, I have no practical experience in using these templates (these TfD discussion were the first I had heard of them), nor the technical expertise in manipulating the coding, so I cannot yet comment knowledgeably on the details. I am happy to endorse what I believe is a consensus decision after discussion, which I trust will include an explanation of the present and proposed future functions of these templates. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle - merging is a good idea, certainly. However, I'd like see a draft template before giving full support. The functionality of the various templates includes:
  • linking to one or more other language wikis via two character language codes – the "one or more" feature can certainly be handled by a single template
  • linking to other language wikis via the Wikidata table – {{illm}} handles this, so a single template can
  • hiding the link to other language wikis when the English one exists versus forcing the other language links to display regardless – I guess a single parameter like |always-display=yes will handle this.
Andy: I suggest you prepare a version of the merged template, perhaps in user space, so we can see how it would work. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support partially – I suppose there are some templates that could be merged to {{interlanguage link multi}}, with additional switches. I oppose anything that makes the default two-letter language code – like (de) – longer, or adding any functionality related to Wikidata. I don't think we should be sending users to Wikidata. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support partially: There are too many variants to keep track of, trying to remember which are useful for which purposes, and what the differences in syntax are. I agree with Jane that the merged template should not include links to Wikidata or Reasonator.
    But I think I disagree with the previous commenter about "not making the default two-letter language code – like (de) – longer". Margin1522, do you mean
    1. you don't want to default to Alpha-3 codes, such as the ones defined in ISO 639-2 in 1998 and all subsequent parts of the standard (plus Alpha-4 in Part 6 for language variants); or
    2. you don't want to allow any representation of the language that's longer than two letters?
If #1, I agree; if #2, I disagree. The two-letter codes are often meaningless to those who aren't familiar with them, and I'd much rather be able to say "in German" than to have to say "de". --Thnidu (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I would be fine with whatever codes we need, or indeed with "in German". My main concern is that the display should be mainly for the benefit of readers, who will see it thousands of times, and not for the benefit of people who might translate the article. I would expect a translator to be able to go out and get all the information about an article, so we don't need to display it to everyone. That would be distracting. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Electronics industry in the United States

[edit]
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Electronics industry in the United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Undefined inclusion criteria, except being in the US and to do with 'electronics' which could mean almost anything. The completely unrelated linked articles in the template demonstrate this. Vaypertrail (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter weather it's a company involved with the manufacturing or development of computers, semiconductors, or radio equipment, they are all electronics. Also, what articles are you talking about that are unrelated to template? Seqqis (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does when there are literally hundreds if not thousands of companies that are in the electronics industry. They are unrelated, in that there is no clear connection or definition of why they are in the template.--Vaypertrail (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of these articles don't have a navbox, but it would be better to narrow down the criteria to direct competitors or otherwise directly related articles. (That is, directly related to each other, not just to the template.) —PC-XT+ 02:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • So split up the template based on what electronics industry the company(ies) deals in? Like a section of the template displaying companies dealing in laptops and another section dealing smartphones or video game hardware? But that may make the template seem too big. Seqqis (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was thinking of splitting into multiple templates, each covering, possibly, one industry. That would keep each template smaller. One template could cover several related sections as long as the list doesn't become too long, though. That's just my opinion. —PC-XT+ 11:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as too broad to be useful as a navigational aid, though I don't oppose orphaning and userfication if the creator wants to use this as a base for one or several more focussed navboxes. Keep in mind though that not everything needs a navbox. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:22, 8 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox German railway vehicle

[edit]
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox German railway vehicle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox locomotive (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox German railway vehicle with Template:Infobox locomotive.
There is no need for a country-specific template; and this one is redundant to its more generic equivalent. It would probably be best to make the German template a wrapper for the other, at least initially, and this may involve a small number of new parameters in the latter, so I have posted this as a merger discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are some issues to be considered if we want to do this. One is that Infobox German railway vehicle covers rolling stock as well as locomotives. Also IIRC it has extra parameters. Finally it does a neat job of colour coding the banner at the top in colours representing the main operator. Also as a translator I'd like to request that, at the very least it remains a wrapper or whatever the term is, so that we can port the infoboxes across and they are automatically displayed in English as at present. Otherwise we waste time rewriting the entire infobox everytime. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • support with caveat I had strongly considered bringing up this discussion myself recently. It always seemed a little strange to me to have a template on the English Wikipedia be written with German parameters; it makes copying data from the German wiki to here easier, but makes it more difficult for future editors to update. The vast majority of locomotive-related parameters are already handled by {{Infobox locomotive}}. The proposed destination uses English language parameters and looks much cleaner (especially with separate areas for build specs, technical specs and locomotive usage). I may be a little biased as the original creator of the template, but it makes more sense to me to use Infobox locomotive for all locomotive articles regardless of where the locomotive was operated. We can add color parameters to the template without too much hassle. Now the caveat, as Bermicourt pointed out, is that the German template is currently used on pages that describe non-locomotive equipment like multiple units and railbuses. So, {{Infobox train}} should be included as a merge destination as well because that template would take care of those cases. The difficulty would be separating them out first; it would take a little time, but it is doable. Slambo (Speak) 16:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As a quick experiment, I tried mapping the parameters from the German template to the generic template. Most of the parameters that aren't already mapped can be added to the generic template. I haven't looked at mapping the color parameters yet. Slambo (Speak) 05:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Railway vehicles include locomotives, but the converse is not true. It is inappropriate to apply {{infobox locomotive}} to a multiple-unit, coach, wagon or maintenance machine. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Slambo's rationale. Mackensen (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification needed It is not clear to me what is being proposed. Is it an even larger version of {{infobox locomotive}} (including parameters that are not appropriate to locomotives)? Robevans123 (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was, but it seems that switching some of the articles that use the German infobox, to use {{Infobox train}}, would be a better solution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a few parameters that are appropriate to locomotives that are not currently in the locomotive infobox, such as those for additional carrying wheel diameters on Garratt locomotives, additional boiler data, rack and cog wheel drive data, and additional cylinder data. Parameters that are appropriate for multiple units and other equipment (parameters including the number of seats, doors and standing places) will be migrated to infobox train. Slambo (Speak) 19:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can only shim the German infoboxes to point to one template, of course, so if the decision is made to split them 2 ways; we'll end up with having manually changing the infoboxes every time for whichever category - locos or non-locos - is not automated. Pity because on at least one other similar template (the Berg/mountain one I think) not only does it display in English initially, which is a huge blessing for translators, but a bot comes along later and changes the whole template from German to English anyway. Very clever! Definitely the way to go with these templates. Bermicourt (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • A wrapper template can decide which of the destination templates to use based on the presence of data in specific parameters. For example if the parameters for the number of seats is populated, then it will display the info in infobox train; if the non-locomotive parameters are not populated it will display infobox locomotive. The wrapper template can also add the article to a tracking category based on which template it displays for other editors or bots to migrate the data to the destination template. That way the translators are still using only one template call. Slambo (Speak) 20:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sounds very cool, Slambo! Bermicourt (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've modified my test template to make such a switch. To test it, pick a random page describing a locomotive and replace {{Infobox German railway vehicle with {{User:Slambo/DE infobox and then hit the preview. Do the same for a page describing a railbus or multiple unit. My test template switches based on the presence of either the |Fußbodenhöhe= (floor height) or |Türen= (doors) parameter. There are probably a few more that could be mapped, but there's your proof-of-concept for a wrapper. Slambo (Speak) 21:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This way you keep the German parameter names? Better have an AWB run the 300 transc's and swap parameter names: |Fußbodenhöhe= → |floorheight= in article. (otherwise, this same translation must be a documentation). -DePiep (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (←) A wrapper template isn't ideal, and it also isn't meant to be a final solution. It's a way to get the content in place using the agreed-upon template and an easy way to collect all of the articles into one tracking category (or a what links here list) so they can be updated more quickly. It also gives bot writers a handy place to find the translation that is needed for automatic updates. I welcome any other suggestions to ease the migration between these templates. Slambo (Speak) 01:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why the intermediate step? Today, the WLH list lists them OK. That "handy place" simply can be the talkpage. Better provide a translation table 1:1, and treat the edit as part of the 'merge' process. Note: this does not state that the target template is OK a priori (I did not read here that the colors will be supported). -DePiep (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Using the wrapper gets all the template calls showing the same destination templates right away. It also helps resolve confusion to future editors over which template to use. As to the colors, both proposed destination templates are based on the {{Infobox}} template, which makes adding style and color parameters much easier. Slambo (Speak) 12:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
re Slambo: we understand that the German language one will be deprecated now or soon, with a note saying like: "Please use template:A or template:B", OK. But that 'confusion' you mention is already present for both English templates! Wrapping those two English templates sort of like you do here, to prevent such confusion for all, could be OK but that is not the topic here. The topic is: make the German one unneeded.
Most useful changes are if you can get the color-parameter thing into the English template(s). With or without the wrapper you build, that is required anyway for good merging. I get that you are working on this in a generic way, which is best. I don't know about other missing params, I assume you oversee those as well. DePiep (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • "that is not the topic here" It is if we choose to discuss it. "the color-parameter thing... is required anyway for good merging". No; we can decide to include them or not; but there is no requirement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are two proposed destination templates, not just one. There are also cases where the mapping isn't one-to-one. For example, the German template has two parameters for the main cylinder size (one for piston stroke, one for cylinder bore), while the proposed destination templates have only one parameter for the cylinder size, so the wrapper takes care of combining those two parameters into the proper text (showing it as "stroke × bore") and adding the appropriate nomenclature as needed when only one is populated. Slambo (Speak) 12:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sigh. So apart from the first sentence, the nomination is dead wrong, triggered only by a similar(?) word in the title. Leaving it for others to sort it out. -DePiep (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Does not look like a merge to me, more like a multiplier. And another tunnotified template that is getting pushed a change into it because of a non-thought through unknowing nomination. If this is it, I'll oppose. -DePiep (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have a working test case that uses a |style= parameter now. It was about as easy as I thought it would be to add this. It took longer to document it than it did to code it. Valid parameters for style are listed on User:Slambo/Loco infobox/astyle/doc; to test it, use the steps above to preview the test on a live article but also add the style parameter. Slambo (Speak) 19:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Slambo, in which template did you add this style param? -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since a test like this should never be taken on live code for a template that is in such wide use, I copied the locomotive infobox code to a test area in my userspace (specifically, User:Slambo/Loco infobox) and added the style parameter there. This should be clear if you look at the code on the base wrapper test template (at User:Slambo/DE infobox as noted above). The style interpretation code is in the /astyle subpage, which is why the documentation for the style parameter is at User:Slambo/Loco infobox/astyle/doc. The styles that were created for this test are copies of those that are currently shown as examples in the German template documentation, with appropriate character and abbreviation modifications for North American keyboards (e.g. Württemberg is coded as Wurttemberg, and ČSD as CSD) and regional styles (e.g. Milwaukee Road's common abbreviation is based on its reporting mark, MILW, not MR as was used for the description on the German template page; similarly, Pennsylvania Railroad is coded as PRR, also based on the railroad's reporting mark, as is common practice in US sources). It is exceptionally easy to add more color style definitions as it is to add parameter codes that define them. I anticipate that adding all of the other parameters that are identified as necessary will be even easier, based on the coding of the base Infobox template. Slambo (Speak) 18:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This might save something. Step 1: Identify the templates involved (& notify). Step 2: analyse & map parameters, describe how & what the receiving templates handles them (like 'color'(?)), all English. Step 3: make a complete transalation list, 1:1, for each option (plus the criteria for the choice which situation to which template). Step 3: publish the list (in /doc), and allow editors to make the edits in articles. Given time,, no transclusion shouwd remain. There is no need to use an intermediate version or step, because in the end we will need them in English. -DePiep (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • We need to ensure the change is a step forward. That would seem to mean:
  • No loss of existing data or features
  • A fully working wrapper that auto-converts the German template when it comes across first time (accepting that some data always has to be translated)
  • Ideally a bot that replaces the wrapper with the main infobox down the line
  • Either merging Infobox Locomotive and Infobox Train or (as is proposed) having an automated way of splitting out loco and non-loco infoboxes
This is not a trivial exercise, but I'm encouraged by Slambo's positive approach. Just need a plan and the expertise to take it forward. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Skip the wrapper stage. Just make sure everyone can replace German parameter name with English one. Make clear which of two needs to be used. -DePiep (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you skip the wrapper stage, the infobox will be unintelligible until it gets replaced, which may not be immediate. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which one unintelligible? 1. Identify which new params are needed in any of the two (required anyway), 2. Give 1:1 param mapping German to the existing English names (required anyway). 3. Describe the choice logic, when to change the German into template A or B (Slambo now is doing in code). (note: these steps should have been presented in the proposal in the first place; the lack of competence in there is shocking). No need to spend smart thinking by good editors on an temporal template. The 300 articles need to be edited anyway. What is unclear in this? -DePiep (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be rude. I'm not a templates expert nor, necessarily, is everyone else here; I'm sure you're not expert at everything either. If you're offering to sort all this out without loss of fidelity, crack on. And in the meantime cut your fellow editors some slack. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both my opening and closing questions are sincere. In between too. And I maintain, with reason, that the nom is lacking competence. Resulting in serious editors, like you and Slambo in this instance, being required to work double shifts to save some quality. -DePiep (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge: Don't need separate templates for every nation in the world on this one. Montanabw(talk) 21:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge as proposed by nom. The proposal is incomple ad incorrect. Also, it is written by incompetence.
Apart from the opening statement ('There is no need for a country-specific template'; i.e. a German-language parameter one I understand this to mean), apart from this not a single fact is correct. It is not "redundant" because not all params are interchangeable (abuse of the word 'redundant'). "best to make the German template a wrapper" - which would keep the German language parameters (nom self-contradicting). "may involve a small number of new parameters in the latter" - if nom states that they are "redundant", this says they "may" be not (self-contradict). The immature thing is that the nom should have made an initial effort to list this issue (parameter mapping). Then, quite soon in the discussion it appears that the German template has two target English templates (also not discovered by the nom). Even today the nom has not corrected themselves for this, leaving the discussion jump all four directions (why does the nom not precise their nomination with knowledge that surfed?). This leaves the burden of solving with other editors, who are now forced to defend against an incompetent proposal. All in all, now the nom just throws in some unbased yells and leaves it to other editors to flesh it out. Also note that the proposal is ambiguous.
Looks like the only reason for listing they used is a probable similarity in words "railway vehicle" and "locomotive". I have pointed these issues out more often for this nom, on these TfD pages. Given that the nom is active in template editing and has Template Editing privilige, I find writing a proposal with this quality showing incompetence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DePiep (talk • contribs) 12:21, 1 January 2015‎
The proposal also states: make the German template a wrapper for the other. This implies that the German (-worded) template is to stay, visible for the editor. That is contradicting that "clearly stated" opening line. Christian75 is right to say it is unclear. Also, that other (third) template is not identified and not tagged. Another unclarity. Unnotified templates can not be edited with possible controversy - as in this case here. -DePiep (talk) 08:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Translation wrappers are usually substituted, so only the parameters used on English Wikipedia are visible for future editors. I assumed that to be the intention here, but clarification from the nominator is preferable. I don't know what to do about the new template. Should this be relisted with the third template included and tagged? —PC-XT+ 10:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[I've outdented because you (DePiep) have again broken the nesting of comments. Please follow the style of comment to which you are responding: using asterisks below asterisks, and colons below colons, as most other commenters do, per WP:LISTGAP ]

What the proposal actually says is "It would probably be best to make the German template a wrapper for the other, at least initially...". There is no contradiction. Your "unnotified templates can not be edited..." assertion is false (indeed, it is contrary to Wikipedia policy); as it is every time you make it, and as has been pointed out to you more than one previously Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose until Template:Infobox locomotive has the extra features needed. This may resolve some of the current objections. Then re-consider the wrapper idea. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a merge proposal which would do just that. Your emboldened "oppose" and your following comment therefore contradict each other, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I probably wasn't clear. I think we should bin this discussion and address the concerns raised by it. That would allow us to come back to the merger table with a cleaner proposal that should go through more easily as a result. I'm not ready to fully support now because I've seen this done badly on other templates that don't deliver properly. Once the merger happens though, no one cares. --Bermicourt (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
re Bermicourt. Good and consistent point, Bermicourt (even though I had a different different follow up in mind, but alas). As has been noted here before by multiple editors, the "merge" proposal seems to be "let's do something, don't know what but we'll find that out later" (aka 'first close this TfD for a hammer, then use that for the subtle needle works'). Also, if one had read the discussion, serious blocking obstacles have been mentioned. The only question open is why no admin is able to draw obvious closing conclusions. -DePiep (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge; specifically, substitute transclusions using a temporary wrapper, as per Slambo. The infoboxes of the following EMUs, railcars and railbuses, cars, and trams should be replaced with {{Infobox train}} or {{Infobox tram}}:
Parameters that are missing from the target infoboxes can be added, but in a judicious manner, as per WP:IBX. For example, consider whether the engine specs all belong in the infobox, or whether it'd be better to present them in a table; {{Infobox locomotive}} is bursting at the seams. This is templates for discussion, and there's no reason why we need to go discuss the merging of parameters someplace else. Finally, accusations of incompetence are simply ludicrous. Alakzi (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree. Of course, this process best be done at the appropriate place, there is no discussion needed (the "D" in TfD) about our goal. It's just technically: how do we do this.
Second, there is another template involved, but that is still not notified or mentioned in the lede. (the German one is to be split two enwiki ones). This omission makes the whole thread stumble on and on. (why is there no admin at all that can re-organise this into something good?)
And tertionary, the Slambo-wrapper route is uselessly missing the point (read this again please). We do not need a wrapper that puts today's article input |Abbildung= into {{Infobox locomotive}}'s |image=, all under a hood. Not even temporarily. Just tell us in the /doc:
Documentation
Article edit. Change template name Infobox German railway vehicle into Infobox locomotive [or the other one; DePiep]. Then change parameter name |Abbildung= into |image= [etc.]. Save your improvement."
-DePiep (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The wrapper exists to automate the substitution, to some degree. If that can be done in some other way without loss of productivity, then sure. Alakzi (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No substitution at all ever. We need parameter translation, and of course a serious mentioning of that 2nd template. -DePiep (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me what you're suggesting be done here. Alakzi (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bang your head agianst the wall five times, remove the word "wrapper" from your life, and provide the documentation as proposed. Alternatively, you can make a wrapper template that translates the German input into plain Russian Cyrillic input, and then feed that to that wrapper you keep mentioning. To be clear: I have lost my patience with serious editors like you that can not drop their lets-help-the-nom-out-at-all-costs attitude. A crippled proposal from the start, and nothing has improved afterward. Now good editors like you keep spending mind-time-energy on it to solve that. But there is nothing to 'merge'. We-do-not-need-a-wrapper. It-can-be-one-to-one. -DePiep (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that we should run AWB or a bot to replace transclusions of the infobox? Isn't this just a technical detail? Wrappers are useful where there's more to do than simply map one parameter to another. Alakzi (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know the wrapper could work, and Slambo is a good template editor. But why this intermediate step at all? What is wrong in applying the documentation steps I described? Yes once the param translations & template-choice-logic is described, an AWB could do it. After that the German one would be idle, and deletable/redirectable (for unedited talkpages). Whatever a wrapper does temporarily, such an AWB/I-edit action will be needed in the end. -DePiep (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've never used AWB, so I hadn't considered it. If it can simply be done with substitution rules in AWB, then the wrapper is—indeed—superfluous. Alakzi (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say: "by AWB or by I-edit" i.e. manual "me"-edit. To get rid of the bad template, editors must replace German param names with English params. That is the core, and we do no need a temporal template for that at all. That edit may take attention yes (AWB can help). Whichever way: that is always required. Always. A wrapper does not solve or skip that. Now let's translate those params. -DePiep (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:13, 8 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Muscles of orbit

[edit]
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge if you feel like it? No one else seems to care, so go for it, and redirect to the merged template when you are done. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Muscles of orbit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Accessory organs of the eye (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Muscles of orbit with Template:Accessory organs of the eye.
As above Tom (LT) (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if this is merged, it should merge to "eye" -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding notice - @LT910001: Please notify the creator of the second template of this pending merge per the TfD/TfM instructions. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: per WP:LIGHTBULB I request do it yourself, which is just as much effort as pointing this out. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @LT910001: Yes, I could notify the template creators, Tom, but that's not really the point. Pursuant to the TfD instructions, the obligation to notify template creators is that of the TfD/TfM nominator, not a TfD discussion participant who happens to notice the nominator's failure to notify. Quoting WP:LIGHTBULB does not change that obligation. Our XfD process work best when nominators adhere to our procedures, which include proper notice and procedural fairness. Template creators (and major contributors) are often among the best sources of background information regarding the architecture, background history, purposes and uses of templates, and may add to the understanding of other TfD participants. Your cooperation, now and in any future TfDs you initiate, is respectfully requested. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Orbital bones

[edit]
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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge if you feel like it? No one else seems to care, so go for it, and redirect one to the other when you are done. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Orbital bones (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Accessory organs of the eye (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Orbital bones with Template:Accessory organs of the eye.
I propose these templates are merged into a single template relating to structures that are in the orbit but not the eye. The current division is strange and unnecessarily fragmented. Tom (LT) (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_8&oldid=1138533480"