1.52.164.40 (talk) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Capankajsmilyo (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 499: | Line 499: | ||
*'''Oppose''' ——[[User:联合果君|联合果君]] ([[User talk:联合果君|talk]]) 17:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''' ——[[User:联合果君|联合果君]] ([[User talk:联合果君|talk]]) 17:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
{{ref-talk}} |
{{ref-talk}} |
||
* '''Merge''' per [[WP:INFOCOL]] [[User:Capankajsmilyo|Capankajsmilyo]]<sup>([[User talk:Capankajsmilyo|Talk]] | [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes/assistance|Infobox assistance]])</sup> 01:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
===== Parameters (pageant titleholder v. model) ===== |
===== Parameters (pageant titleholder v. model) ===== |
||
Revision as of 01:34, 24 March 2020
March 19
Template:Actor-model-stub
- Template:Actor-model-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:US-actor-model-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused stub templates for the intersection of two tangentially related occupations, whose associated categories were deleted by WP:CFD as non-defining. People who are notable as actors or actresses can be stub-sorted as actors or actresses, and people who were notable as models can be stub-sorted as models, without needing a separate stub category or template for people who were both actors and models. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Politburo
- Template:Infobox Politburo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox legislature (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Infobox Politburo with Template:Infobox legislature.
Any reason not to? PPEMES (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Noting that the politburo template has just 13 transcluions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Merge {{Infobox Politburo}} into {{Infobox legislative term}} instead. The use cases of the former seem more similar to a legislative term than the legislative body itself. – Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 12:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Does it matter that it was more of an executive body than a legislative one? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- In that case it can be merged into {{Infobox government cabinet}}. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Template:Infobox academic
- Template:Infobox academic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox scientist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Infobox academic with Template:Infobox scientist.
I'm afraid this is largely overlapping, though "academic" is an accidental feature and "scientist" the essential one? PPEMES (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm weakly opposed. I don't see the benefit of merging the two because, while there is overlap, there are many academics who are not scientists (i.e., humanists) and {{infobox scientist}} seems to have parameters specifically for botanists and zoologists. If they do get merged, I would recommend ibox scientist be merged into ibox academic rather than the other way, since ibox academic is more general. — Wug·a·po·des 19:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Largely overlapping. Many scientist are also academics & vice versa. Examples in the documentation of {{Infobox academic}} include "discipline = Physicist" and "Academic discipline - Sub-atomic research", while {{Infobox scientist}} has various parameters for the subject's students. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose merge. Just as there are many academics who are not scientists, so also there are scientists who are not academics. My late father was a scientist, but there is no way he could ever be described as an "academic". --NSH001 (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose merge. Some academics are not scientists, some scientists are not academics, so a merged template only makes sense for scientists who are academics. There might be scope for a more general template that embraces both (in content and name), but until there is they should both be kept. — Jts1882 | talk 07:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- The creation of such a template is exactly what the proposal you oppose is suggesting. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- No it isn't. The proposal is to merge them, which is what I and others specifically opposed. Neither name is suitable for a merged template so it is misleading to redirect either to the other. I made a tentative proposal that a new broader template could cover both, which gets some support below. This could be discussed constructively. — Jts1882 | talk 17:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Why make it more complicated than it has to be - what about "infobox scientists and academics"? PPEMES (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. There is nothing to say that a merged template has to retain one of the old names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- The question we need to resolve here is "are the templates {{Infobox academic}} and {{Infobox scientist}} sufficiently similar that a single template could serve all of the articles that use them?" If so, then the name doesn't matter because it's not exposed to the reader. We could host the merged template at "academic" and have "scientist" as a redirect, or vice-versa; or have it at another title with two redirects; or no redirects if we wanted. It's important to realise that the name of an infobox is a convenience to identify it, not a classification of its usage. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- If we consider how Category:Scholars and academics have handled it, what about "Infobox scholars", "Infobox scholars and academics", or something to that effect? PPEMES (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- P.S. You do know that, once the templates are merged to a new name, both "Infobox academic" and "Infobox scientist" would be retained as redirects? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- No it isn't. The proposal is to merge them, which is what I and others specifically opposed. Neither name is suitable for a merged template so it is misleading to redirect either to the other. I made a tentative proposal that a new broader template could cover both, which gets some support below. This could be discussed constructively. — Jts1882 | talk 17:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- The creation of such a template is exactly what the proposal you oppose is suggesting. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose merge, as per User:Jts1882 above. I would love to see some work done to reconcile common or very similar attributes of the academic and scientist templates, perhaps even moving some of the common features into infobox person, but I think a merge is not desirable. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose, per JTS1882. DS (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose, not all scientists are academics, not all academics are scientists Duncan.Hull (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- They do not need to be; the questions is, how similar are the infoboxes, and do we need two, and if so, why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: I think a clearer description of the intended outcome could address the "many academics are not scientists, many scientists are not academics" issue. Looking at the parameters, I could imagine all of them being encompassed in a "researcher" template, for example. But since I primarily work on pages about academics who are not scientists, it's a little worrying to hear "'academic' is an accidental feature and 'scientist' the essential one" -- it makes it sound like the features in the "academic" infobox would be removed, which I consider obviously undesirable. What is the impetus for the merge? / What would the merge change? ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 21:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose No clear rationale for the merger, very clear reasons for not merging (ie the majority of academics are not scientists). I struggle to think of a term that could encompass the two without causing further problems of generalisation (eg renaming as "specialist" would lead to the inclusion of all sorts of activities far removed from what is intended...as would "researcher"). --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- The rationale is the one set out at Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: "Infobox:Historian" already redirects to "infobox scientist" --Liverpoolpics (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Merge the point is not that there are some people who are scientists but not academics and vice versa. The point is that there is enough overlap and one template could easily handle the two circumstances. A single template reduces maintenance burden and promotes standardization. A new name for the merged template may be in order. Ergo Sum 14:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- I've just taken a second look. What parameters are unique to each template? I count one or two at most. Ergo Sum 16:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose merge: the umbrella of academia covers nearly every profession imaginable: humanities, medicine, law, theology, finance, accounting, business administration, technology, engineering, government, and so on and so on... They are all distinct concepts and categories, and any generic catch-all category of all of these thing lumped into one would be largely meaningless. Re: another comment abou "Infobox: historian" redirecting to infobox: scientist: historian ought to redirect to ACADEMIC, not scientist, because historians are not scientists, and historians are also one of the very few categories in which practically all of them *would* also be academics. Firejuggler86 (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose I have created and expanded articles for several historians, and the academic infobox works very well. An excellent example of its use can be found at Eric Foner. Historians should not be classified as scientists. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Conditional merge: I support merge to infobox academic, but only if a parameter such as "|scientist=yes" is added to indicate science vs humanities. Otherwise, I oppose. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 21:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. The words 'scientists' and 'academics' are not synonymous. Nerd271 (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Neither are the words "judge" and "president" synonymous, but we manage to serve both groups quite well with the same template. --RexxS (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- That may be true, but is irrelevant. These categories are too broad. Moreover, what works for two groups does not necessary work for another pair. Nerd271 (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- These are not categories: they are merely the names for the templates, and no reader sees them, so "too broad" is meaningless. Of course, the other side of your argument also holds true: what doesn't work for two groups may work for another pair. And that's why your original argument is equally irrelevant. --RexxS (talk) 10:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, so you do acknowledge my argument. But what you derived from it, I am afraid, is invalid. There should be different templates for different categories. Both judges and presidents can be categorized as office holders. But scientists and academics are not of the same category. Mathematicians, natural scientists, and computer scientists can be broadly grouped as scientists; people in the humanities, on the other hand, have their own group. Each broad group – but not too broad – should get their own template. Nerd271 (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- These are not categories: they are merely the names for the templates, and no reader sees them, so "too broad" is meaningless. Of course, the other side of your argument also holds true: what doesn't work for two groups may work for another pair. And that's why your original argument is equally irrelevant. --RexxS (talk) 10:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- That may be true, but is irrelevant. These categories are too broad. Moreover, what works for two groups does not necessary work for another pair. Nerd271 (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Neither are the words "judge" and "president" synonymous, but we manage to serve both groups quite well with the same template. --RexxS (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I quite agree with the other opposes above. Just to provide an example of why a single template is a bad idea, I give you this article. Apparently, a few years ago, Template:Historian was oddly merged into Scientist rather than Academic, causing a historian to have a "scientific career" listed in her infobox (I only recently discovered this after having been inactive on WP for a while). This sort of confusion is why we should keep the above templates separate. (Also, Template:Historian should really be merged into Academic but that is for a different discussion). Ruby2010 (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose The nomination doesn't make a case for this and the historian/scientist example shows how this can go wrong. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Strong oppose for the arguments stated by the people who actively work with these infoboxes and know them in and out. —МандичкаYO 😜 17:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- You have no special authority; I support a merge and work with both templates and know them in and out, and you don't speak for me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose——联合果君 (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose merger: not all academics are scientists; not all scientists are academics; and a merger would conflate the two. That aside, no stated reason is sufficient enough to oppose. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. Would've voted earlier, but seemed like everyone already did that for me. Voting now anyway just because. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. Seems entirely unnecessary. MargaretRDonald (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose: Why would scientists be merged with academics, and not every other discipline? Which does not mean that both could not be improved - see table below. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 21:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
parameters (academic v. scientist)
Here is a comparison of the parameters in the two templates:
Parameter | Infobox academic | Infobox scientist |
---|---|---|
academic_advisors | ||
alma_mater | ||
alt | ||
author_abbrev_bot | ||
author_abbrev_zoo | ||
author_abbreviation_bot | ||
author_abbreviation_zoo | ||
awards | ||
birth_date | ||
birth_name | ||
birth_place | ||
boards | ||
caption | ||
child | ||
children | ||
citizenship | ||
death_cause | ||
death_date | ||
death_place | ||
denomination | ||
discipline | ||
doctoral_advisor | ||
doctoral_advisors | ||
doctoral_students | ||
education | ||
embed | ||
era | ||
field | ||
fields | ||
footnotes | ||
home_town | ||
homepage | ||
honorific prefix
honorific_prefix |
||
honorific suffix
honorific_suffix |
||
image | ||
image_name | ||
image_size
imagesize |
||
image_upright | ||
influenced | ||
influences | ||
known_for | ||
main_interests | ||
major_works | ||
module | ||
name | ||
nationality | ||
native_name | ||
native_name_lang | ||
nocat_wdimage | ||
non-academic | ||
notable_ideas | ||
notable_students | ||
notable_works
notableworks |
||
occupation | ||
other_names
othernames |
||
parents | ||
partner | ||
partners | ||
patrons | ||
period | ||
principal_ideas | ||
prizes | ||
pronounce
Pronounce |
||
pronounce 2 | ||
pronounce comment | ||
pronounce ref | ||
Pronunciation
pronunciation |
||
relatives | ||
resting place
resting_place restingplace |
||
resting place coordinates
resting_place_coordinates restingplacecoordinates |
||
school_tradition | ||
siglum | ||
signature | ||
signature alt
signature_alt |
||
signature_size | ||
spouse | ||
spouses | ||
sub_discipline | ||
thesis_title | ||
thesis_url | ||
thesis_year | ||
thesis1_title | ||
thesis1_url | ||
thesis1_year | ||
thesis2_title | ||
thesis2_url | ||
thesis2_year | ||
title | ||
titles | ||
URL | ||
website | ||
work_institution | ||
work_institutions | ||
workplaces |
I have yet to determine why, for example, we think that scientists do not sit on boards, or that academics do not get buried when they die. Or why we believe that divorced or widowed scientists might remarry, but that divorced or widowed academics do not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Template:Infobox pageant titleholder
- Template:Infobox pageant titleholder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox model (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Infobox pageant titleholder with Template:Infobox model.
Wouldn't this better be merged? PPEMES (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)p
- Merge per nom. Noting that both are already wrappers for {{Infobox person}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I really, truly think it should be left alone. Pageant title holders are not automatically models. I work on enough model articles to know by heart what goes into their infoboxes and merging them wouldn’t do any service. ⌚️ (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose They are not the same thing. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- They do not need to be the same thing; the questions is, how similar are the infoboxes, and do we need two, and if so, why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- The similarities end after the basic biographical details. Pageant titleholders have their respective wins but for models, it can’t simply be infobox person or else relevant career information will not show up because the parameters don’t match. And if I tried to put agency (which wouldn’t even need to be done because pageant titleholders rarely have modeling or talent agents unless they have branched out far enough) for a pageant titleholder it wouldn’t show up either. These are the things that delineate their roles. ⌚️ (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- But that isn't true, is it - see the table below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- The similarities end after the basic biographical details. Pageant titleholders have their respective wins but for models, it can’t simply be infobox person or else relevant career information will not show up because the parameters don’t match. And if I tried to put agency (which wouldn’t even need to be done because pageant titleholders rarely have modeling or talent agents unless they have branched out far enough) for a pageant titleholder it wouldn’t show up either. These are the things that delineate their roles. ⌚️ (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- They do not need to be the same thing; the questions is, how similar are the infoboxes, and do we need two, and if so, why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Merge both into {{Infobox person}} – Three of the unique params,
|height=
, and|hair_color=
,|eye_color=
, can be removed. If these attributes are even notable at all, and I am sure they are not for most models, it will suffice to state the attribute in the body of the article or even the lede if highly notable. None of these are major attributes for a majority of people. In {{Infobox person}},|competitions=
can be made into an alternate for|awards=
(which is not used in either of these above templates), and|agency=
can be made into an alternate for|agent=
(which is in {{Infobox person}} already). By "alternate", I mean in the same way {{Infobox person}} behaves differently depending on if you use|title=
or|office=
.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
-
- For a model, height, hair color, and eye color are required for the “modeling information” section of the infobox. Why does no one get this? ⌚️ (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- These parameters are usually not sourced and, more importantly, not notable. If they are notable, you should be able to add them to the body with a good source. That rarely if ever happens, even though it is a requirement that all information in the infobox should be repeated and sourced in the body. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- They usually are sourced... by what agency the person is represented by; especially when these are prone to edit warring. It doesn’t matter if the feature is notable for them (unlike actors or other entertainers where it’s not notable there at all unless it’s their most recognizable trait like Danny DeVito), it’s part of their job to have it listed what their measurements and features are. ⌚️ (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- By that logic, we should add
|weight=
. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)- No, we shouldn't. Go to any agency website: they will list their models' hair color, eye color, height, and measurements, as these are all relevant details for a model's career. For example.[1] { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 23:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Weight changes daily... ⌚️ (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- By that logic, we should add
- They usually are sourced... by what agency the person is represented by; especially when these are prone to edit warring. It doesn’t matter if the feature is notable for them (unlike actors or other entertainers where it’s not notable there at all unless it’s their most recognizable trait like Danny DeVito), it’s part of their job to have it listed what their measurements and features are. ⌚️ (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- These parameters are usually not sourced and, more importantly, not notable. If they are notable, you should be able to add them to the body with a good source. That rarely if ever happens, even though it is a requirement that all information in the infobox should be repeated and sourced in the body. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- For a model, height, hair color, and eye color are required for the “modeling information” section of the infobox. Why does no one get this? ⌚️ (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Merge per WP:INFOCOL Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 01:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Parameters (pageant titleholder v. model)
Here is a comparison of the parameters in the two templates:
Parameter | Infobox pageant titleholder | Infobox model |
---|---|---|
agencies | ||
agency | ||
alias | ||
alma mater
alma_mater |
||
alt | ||
birth_date | ||
birth_name
birthname |
||
birth_place | ||
caption | ||
child | ||
children | ||
citizenship | ||
competitions | ||
death_cause | ||
death_date | ||
death_place | ||
domestic partner
domestic_partner |
||
education | ||
eye_color
eyecolor |
||
eye_colour
eyecolour |
||
films | ||
hair_color
haircolor |
||
hair_colour
haircolour |
||
height | ||
height_cm | ||
height_ft | ||
height_in | ||
height_m | ||
home_town
hometown |
||
homepage | ||
honorific_prefix | ||
honorific_suffix | ||
image | ||
image_size
imagesize |
||
known_for | ||
manager | ||
module | ||
name | ||
nationalcompetition | ||
nationality | ||
native_name | ||
native_name_lang | ||
nocat_wdimage | ||
occupation | ||
other_names | ||
parents | ||
partner | ||
photo | ||
relations | ||
relatives | ||
residence | ||
resting_place | ||
signature | ||
signature_alt | ||
signature_size | ||
spouse | ||
television | ||
title | ||
website | ||
years active
years_active yearsactive |
Can anyone offer an argument why any parameter - let alone a significant number of parameters - marked with a cross for "no" belong to one class of subject, and not the other? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Playboy Playmate
- Template:Infobox Playboy Playmate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox model (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Infobox Playboy Playmate with Template:Infobox model.
Or else at least to Template:Infobox pageant titleholder if that one is kept (see above)? PPEMES (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Merge per nom, maintaining Infobox model's status as a wrapper for {{Infobox person}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose It looks like its not an normal "infobox person" infobox. It is used to present the persons at the time they were the "Playboy Playmates". And therefore, some articles has both a normal infobox and later in the article an infobox Playboy Playmate. And measurements should not be readded to infobox model. It was removed because measurements change as time go by... Christian75 (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose This template was made for Playmates for a reason. It’s supposed to show what issues they appeared in, and who preceded/succeeded them. There are countless, hundreds of Playmates who are not notable models. ⌚️ (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose .——联合果君 (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Parameters (Playboy Playmate v. model)
Here is a comparison of the parameters in the two templates:
Parameter | Infobox Playboy Playmate | Infobox model |
---|---|---|
agencies | ||
agency | ||
alias | ||
alma_mater | ||
alt | ||
birth_date | ||
birth_name
birthname |
||
birth_place | ||
bust | ||
caption | ||
child | ||
children | ||
citizenship | ||
death_cause | ||
death_date | ||
death_place | ||
embed | ||
eye_color
eyecolor |
||
eye_colour
eyecolour |
||
hair_color
haircolor |
||
hair_colour
haircolour |
||
height | ||
height_cm | ||
height_ft | ||
height_in | ||
height_m | ||
hips | ||
honorific_prefix | ||
honorific_suffix | ||
image | ||
image_size
imagesize |
||
issue | ||
known_for | ||
manager | ||
module | ||
name | ||
nationality | ||
native_name | ||
native_name_lang | ||
natural bust | ||
nocat_wdimage | ||
occupation | ||
other_names | ||
parents | ||
partner | ||
pmoy-preceded | ||
pmoy-succeeded | ||
pmoy-year | ||
preceded | ||
relations | ||
relatives | ||
residence | ||
resting_place | ||
spouse | ||
subbox | ||
succeeded | ||
television | ||
title | ||
waist | ||
website | ||
weight | ||
years_active
yearsactive |
Can anyone offer an argument why any parameter - let alone a significant number of parameters - marked with a cross for "no" belong to one class of subject, and not the other? do playmates not have coloured eyes? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Template:Infobox executive government
- Template:Infobox executive government (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox government (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Infobox executive government with Template:Infobox government.
Could we use a merge here? PPEMES (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – These templates are for two completely separate things. The 'executive government' template is for articles about governments in the parliamentary sense, that is, the administration or executive. The 'government' template is for articles relating to government in the American sense of 'political system'. RGloucester — ☎ 18:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – 联合果君 (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Native American leader
- Template:Infobox Native American leader (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox person (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Infobox Native American leader with Template:Infobox person.
I know it concerns a wrapper, but the variable "clan" is arguably not specific enough to merit a specific ethnic group template. There are many infobox person-articles where that is a potentially relevant variable despite not necessarly pertaining to an office holder. Hence why not merge? As an alternative perhaps also to Template:Infobox officeholder. PPEMES (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox Native American leader is based on Template:Infobox officeholder and is very different from Template:Infobox person, so the amount of changes and single-use parameters needed in Infobox person to accommodate it would be ridiculous. The idea of merging into Template:Infobox officeholder would be worth looking at, but it seems to me that Template:Infobox Native American leader has three parameters not implemented in Template:Infobox officeholder:
|tribe=
,|role=
and|mother_tongue=
. Are these useful beyond Template:Infobox Native American leader? If not, then that's exactly why we have wrappers. In any case, I'd be loathe to see|mother_tongue=
implemented in Template:Infobox officeholder, as we'd then have loads of infoboxes where well-meaning editors start adding|mother_tongue=English
completely redundantly, increasing the infobox bloat with trivia. --RexxS (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC) - Oppose. Wrong target. If anything, it should be merged with {{Infobox officeholder}}, but RexxS makes good points in opposition to that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Merging with officeholder seems like a good alternative solution. Well, why is mother tongue relevant to this wrapper then and if so not applicable with the same arguments elsewhere? Would it be an idea to treat that variable in a more categorial way then? PPEMES (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Well, there are 6 articles (search on
hastemplate:"Infobox Native American leader" insource:/mother_tongue *= *\[/
) that use the parameter. Would it improve those articles to remove the parameter? It's clearly inappropriate to use|mother_tongue=
in any of the 150,000 articles that use Template:Infobox officeholder – otherwise please give an example of one that would benefit. - As I see it, we have three alternatives:
- Remove the
mother_tongue
field from six articles when merging Template:Infobox Native American leader into Template:Infobox officeholder. - Implement the
mother_tongue
field when merging Template:Infobox Native American leader into Template:Infobox officeholder, knowing that it's not for use in 150,000 of them. - Leave things as they are.
- Remove the
- I'm still not seeing what advantage the first two options have over the third. --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. If so, I'm afraid I'm leaning 1, should you not come up with a reason for why one single specific language speaker group and no others should be afforded this variable? PPEMES (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- The parameter was added in 2015 by Pigsonthewing, so you could ask him why Native American leaders' mother tongue is a useful field. Or you could read the thread Template talk:Infobox Native American leader #Parameters not showing up in Infobox to get an idea of the demand that existed for the field. In any case, I don't have to come up with a reason, as the onus naturally falls on you to demonstrate why removing a parameter that has enjoyed five years consensus would improve the encyclopedia. I still haven't heard your reasoning beyond "we should do this, because we can". Who benefits? --RexxS (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- The most obvious reason as it seemeth to me for why mother tongue is a useful field for Native American leaders is thus: American Indian tribes have the unique status of "dependent sovereign nations" within another sovereign state; they are also descended from a broad variety of different cultures with different languages, which is not categorically obvious, as it most undoubtedly IS for the overwhelming majority of the 150,000 articles that use tube officeholder infobox (e.g., it's not useful to highlight that a British officeholders mother tongue is English, nor that a French officeholders mother tongue is French, etc). Firejuggler86 (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. If so, I'm afraid I'm leaning 1, should you not come up with a reason for why one single specific language speaker group and no others should be afforded this variable? PPEMES (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Well, there are 6 articles (search on
- Merging with officeholder seems like a good alternative solution. Well, why is mother tongue relevant to this wrapper then and if so not applicable with the same arguments elsewhere? Would it be an idea to treat that variable in a more categorial way then? PPEMES (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose, wrong target, and appears to have good reasons to be a wrapper. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per RexxS. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose.——联合果君 (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support merge to Officeholder - aside from 'mother tongue' there is really nothing that cannot be easily replicated. Just because the parameter does not say 'tribe' does not mean the tribe's name cannot be put in it. 'Mother tongue' is not useful in an infobox, imo. The mother tongue will be dependent upon what tribe they were a member of - would it not? It does not serve any real purpose as far as I can tell, anymore than putting that the Attila spoke Hunnic. The native leader is a very simple infobox and there is no reason for it to standalone in my opinion. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 14:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Template:Infobox United Nations
- Template:Infobox United Nations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox organization (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Infobox United Nations with Template:Infobox organization.
Seems largely redundant? PPEMES (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Merge The UN infobox is more limited and the UN logo doesn't really fit on many articles, so there's no need for the UN infobox.– BrandonXLF (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Merge This is effectively a watered down version of Infobox Organisation, there is no point unless there are some specific differences that require there to be a template for the UN. Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • Talk∕Contribs 19:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Merge WP:INFOCOL. Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 10:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Template:Infobox clergy
- Template:Infobox clergy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox Christian leader (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Infobox clergy with Template:Infobox Christian leader.
Too overlapping not to merge? PPEMES (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Merge clergy into Christian leader, so as to keep the latter. Ergo Sum 17:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- And then rename as "Infobox Christian officeholder"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I would support that for the final merged template. PPEMES (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- I support "Christian officeholder" over "Christian leader" as well, it would include more possible positions of various denominations I think. Nablais (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- My preference would be to keep the name "Christian leader" – it does a better job of encompassing all denominations, even those that don't technically or officially have "offices". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- I support "Christian officeholder" over "Christian leader" as well, it would include more possible positions of various denominations I think. Nablais (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I would support that for the final merged template. PPEMES (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral - this merge has been raised in the past on some occasions. The underlying issue is that some parameters in one infobox are not explicitly applicable to the other no matter how complimentary they may seem. Furthermore, the Christian leader and clergy infoboxes are completely different set-ups; the Christian leader infobox is set apart mainly for popes or episcopal figures while the clergy infobox has been used mainly for priests and religious from the various faiths. However, that being said, I would certainly accept the merge on the basis that the clergy infobox becomes part of the Christian leader infobox (as Ergo Sum suggested) since the latter seems to be the main infobox to use for important religious figures and the layout is easy to navigate. Lord Sidious 82 (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- A majority of clergy in Christianity adhere to episcopal structures. In fact, the word "clergy" could be considered even more associated with such structures than mere "Christian leader". For those that don't, the said variables may be freely omittied. PPEMES (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- But a majority of clergy are not actually bishops, is the point. "Christian leader" came about from a merge 10 years or so ago of templates for bishops, archbishops, patriarchs and popes. That is to say, clergy with extensive jurisdiction over other clergy. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- A majority of clergy in Christianity adhere to episcopal structures. In fact, the word "clergy" could be considered even more associated with such structures than mere "Christian leader". For those that don't, the said variables may be freely omittied. PPEMES (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: As long as the distinctive fields are kept for different flavours and ranks (see the range of options, such as "Ambassador", "Governor" and "Judge", in the Officeholder template) why not nest both, and such others as "Latter Day Saint biography", "rebbe" and "saint", to "Religious biography"? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Proposing a merge of all the religious person infoboxes has long been on my to-do list. The biggest obstacle is that there are so many parameters that are unique to each that it would be a very large undertaking (although not impossible). The subsidiary issue is how to ensure proper emphasis/placement of parameters for each denomination while still maintaining a single template. If others are interested in creating one super-template, I'd be interested in helping out. Ergo Sum 00:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- I can't see a single all-encompassing template being manageable. It would have to be something with subtemplates, along the same lines as "Officeholder". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I was thinking. Ergo Sum 01:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Andreas Philopater: I'm going to try out a nested infobox with sub-templates in my sandbox. Would you care to join the project, as well as anyone else you know who might be interested? Ergo Sum 18:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I was thinking. Ergo Sum 01:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- I can't see a single all-encompassing template being manageable. It would have to be something with subtemplates, along the same lines as "Officeholder". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Proposing a merge of all the religious person infoboxes has long been on my to-do list. The biggest obstacle is that there are so many parameters that are unique to each that it would be a very large undertaking (although not impossible). The subsidiary issue is how to ensure proper emphasis/placement of parameters for each denomination while still maintaining a single template. If others are interested in creating one super-template, I'd be interested in helping out. Ergo Sum 00:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support as long as the merge is sensitive to the differences inherent in an infobox for somebody who leads a congregation ("clergy") and somebody who oversees large numbers of clergy ("Christian leader"). In actual fact, a lot of editors already seem to use "Christian leader" as though it were the infobox template for clergy in general (and lay preachers and a variety of other Christian ministers, catechists, etc.). I have, however, put notices on the talk pages of WikiProjects that most use these templates, to see if the editors most familiar with them can offer useful input. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support merge: But does present christian leader template need to be improved to accommodate all types of christian leaders? for example: abbots; superiors, generals or provincials of religious orders; patriarchs, archimandrites and other clergy leadership positions of eastern churches; and even prophets and other positions of the LDS church. There are probably others.Emendment (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - while similar they have different "target audiences": clergy for local leaders or those notable for other things, whereas Christian leader is explicitly for senior leaders from churches in the apostolic succession (and therefore has detailed parameters cascading from church to diocese and for ordination). Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 23:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - per Gaia Octavia Agrippa, the two infoboxes serve different purposes and should not be merged simply because they are similar. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Merge er WP:INFOCOL Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 10:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Although similar, there are clear and established differences between these infoboxes and are set up differently. There is overlap, but the nom. merge rationale does not provide any compelling reason to show that merge would be an improvement. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Template:Campaign medals of the Honourable East India Company
- Template:Campaign medals of the Honourable East India Company (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:British campaign medals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Campaign medals of the Honourable East India Company with Template:British campaign medals.
I am aware that this has been discussed by the creator at Template talk:Campaign medals of the Honourable East India Company. However, as later nationally recognised, why couldn't this simply be collected in one single template? PPEMES (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe, but a few issues: The earliest HEIC medals for: Deccan; Mysore; Capture of Ceylon; Egypt; Capture of Rodrigues etc; Java; Nepal; Burma and Coorg were awarded exclusively to Indian troops – British Army troops serving alongside them did not receive the medal. Therefore to class them as British campaign medals seems wrong. I note that the British campaign medals template has separate sections for '19th Century', 'First World War' etc. One option would be to add a section for 'East India Company medals only awarded to Indian troops'. The Seringapatam medal, that was also awarded to British soldiers, could be added to the main list. Or, of course, one could leave the templates as they are... Happy to see what others think. Hsq7278 (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Template:Infobox pretender
- Template:Infobox pretender (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox royalty (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Infobox pretender with Template:Infobox royalty.
Argubaly a minority if any royalties could be considered universally recognised. Would it be fair to attempt to create a one single template that could handle varying degrees of recognition of titles in pretense? PPEMES (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose merge. The actual royals should just use the royalty infobox. The non-royals can just use infobox person like everyone else. I see no good reason for this infobox at all, and would therefore support deletion as it is unnecessary and POV. DrKay (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete the "pretender" infobox (which has just 32 transclusions), and replace with infobox person, per DrKay, otherwise merge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep both infoboxes separate. I think both are helpful to readers and useful for finding quick information. Pretenders occupy a different role when it comes to royalty, and the regular infobox does not fit their role. --Kbabej (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Why would a merged template not be "helpful to readers and useful for finding quick information"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose merge. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Merging, With Reservation: I agree that "pretenders" shouldn't be treated the same as legitimate rulers because they did not have the same impact, generally speaking, on the legal, social, or military history of their countries. But the line between pretender and legitimate ruler can often be very thin. How do we differentiate between the two, generally speaking? RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose.——联合果君 (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Infobox pretender and replace with Infobox person. Infobox pretender is generally a useless infobox since it lumps former royals and dubious individuals like Frédéric Luz or like Jeremiah Heaton of the Kingdom of North Sudan. KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - as there are no unique and vital parameters in it that cannot be covered via other avenues. It's important to note that using a royalty infobox on a pretender does not mean we are calling the pretender a real royal.. when viewed on a live page, the infobox will appear just as an infobox - it is the parameters that matter. The fact is we should use whichever infobox fits our needs best and not pay too much attention to what it is called. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 14:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per El cid. People need to understand that a term in infobox name has no bearing to anything inside the article as long as the infobox can accommodate necessary parameters. Renata (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Template:Infobox gunpowder plotter
- Template:Infobox gunpowder plotter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox criminal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Infobox gunpowder plotter with Template:Infobox criminal.
Surely this merits consideration? PPEMES (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Used on only 14 biographies (where it is redundant to either {{Infobox criminal}} or {{Infobox person}}) and one event (where it is redundant to {{Infobox event}}; or possibly {{Infobox civil conflict}}). We have, AFAICT, no other infobox which is used in this fashion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Appropriately scoped for this particular limited series of articles, don't see a benefit to merging. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Nikkimaria. See no benefit to merging. userdude 23:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: @UserDude: Would you mind indicating what variable in Infobox gunpowder plotter can absolutely not be included in Infobox criminal and why, please? PPEMES (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- At first glance, it looks like
details
,participants
,plot
,result
,role
,enlisted
, andcaptured
. It would be entirely inappropriate to add multiple extra parameters to a template used in 4,000 articles just to accommodate a specialised template used in only 13. --RexxS (talk) 11:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)- How can we be so sure that these variables would not be helpful also in application in other articles? PPEMES (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- (Please see MOS:INDENTMIX)
- Because if they were, somebody would have asked for them before now. And if they were helpful also in application in other articles, we could just use {{Infobox gunpowder plotter}} without having to merge it. But normally, we expect to see examples of where parameters would be useful, before we do the work in implementing them. --RexxS (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Everything biographical is catered for in the 'criminal' infobox; for
|role=
, use|known_for=
, rewording as necessary - for example, change "Catesby's retainer" to "Acting as Catesby's retainer in the Gunpowder Plot". the single instance of the template on the article about the event, rather than a biography should be replaced with {{Infobox event}}, where the event-specific parameters also have equivalents, and would not be merged into {{Infobox criminal}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- How can we be so sure that these variables would not be helpful also in application in other articles? PPEMES (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- At first glance, it looks like
- @Nikkimaria: @UserDude: Would you mind indicating what variable in Infobox gunpowder plotter can absolutely not be included in Infobox criminal and why, please? PPEMES (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Template:Infobox peer
- Template:Infobox peer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox noble (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Infobox peer with Template:Infobox noble.
You wouldn't awefully mind a combined infobox for the total scope, would you? PPEMES (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. A peer is not the same as a noble. Nobles are aristocrats, peers are not necessarily so. So noble is a wholly incorrect title. —МандичкаYO 😜 10:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Wikimandia: I haven't seen any article containing with "peer" in its name that doesn't speak of it in terms of a noble or aristocratic context. If you insist, however, the name for the merged template could be something like "infobox aristocrate". PPEMES (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Everyone in the House of Lords is a peer, but only 92 of them are nobles. They are all peers of the realm, but the mass majority are not aristocrats. Raj Bagri, Baron Bagri is a peer. He is not, however, an aristocrat. His article uses infobox_peerage. A noble and a peer are not the same thing, which is why I opposed this merge. Likewise, there are members of the nobility who are not peers. Please do not suggest merges if you don't understand the basic principles of the infoboxes at hand. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Peerages in the United Kingdom says "composed of various noble ranks". Life peer says "always created at the rank of baron". Baron says "a rank of nobility". In Raj Bagri, Baron Bagri, how is "under the title Baron Bagri" outside the scope of aristocracy to you? PPEMES (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Everyone in the House of Lords is a peer, but only 92 of them are nobles. They are all peers of the realm, but the mass majority are not aristocrats. Raj Bagri, Baron Bagri is a peer. He is not, however, an aristocrat. His article uses infobox_peerage. A noble and a peer are not the same thing, which is why I opposed this merge. Likewise, there are members of the nobility who are not peers. Please do not suggest merges if you don't understand the basic principles of the infoboxes at hand. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Wikimandia: I haven't seen any article containing with "peer" in its name that doesn't speak of it in terms of a noble or aristocratic context. If you insist, however, the name for the merged template could be something like "infobox aristocrate". PPEMES (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Parameters (peer v. noble)
Here is a comparison of the parameters in the two templates:
Parameter | Infobox peer | Infobox noble |
---|---|---|
1 | ||
2 | ||
abovestyle | ||
alt | ||
birth_date | ||
birth_name
birthname |
||
birth_place | ||
body_discovered | ||
burial_date | ||
burial_place | ||
caption | ||
christening_date | ||
christening_place | ||
CoA | ||
date of burial | ||
date of christening | ||
death_cause | ||
death_date | ||
death_place | ||
father | ||
footnotes | ||
full name | ||
heir | ||
heir-type | ||
honorific prefix
honorific_prefix |
||
honorific suffix
honorific_suffix |
||
honorific-prefix | ||
honorific-suffix | ||
house-type | ||
image | ||
image_size
imagesize |
||
issue | ||
issue-link | ||
issue-pipe | ||
known | ||
known_for | ||
locality | ||
memorials | ||
misc | ||
module | ||
more | ||
mother | ||
name | ||
nationality | ||
native_name | ||
native_name_lang | ||
networth | ||
noble family | ||
occupation | ||
offices | ||
other_names | ||
other_titles | ||
parents | ||
place of burial | ||
place of christening | ||
post-nominals | ||
pre-nominals | ||
pre-type | ||
preceded by
preceded_by |
||
predecessor | ||
previous | ||
reign | ||
reign-type | ||
religion | ||
residence | ||
resting_place | ||
resting_place_coordinates | ||
signature | ||
spouse | ||
spouse-type | ||
styles | ||
suc-type | ||
succeeded by
succeeded_by |
||
succession | ||
successor | ||
tenure | ||
title | ||
titles | ||
url | ||
wars_and_battles | ||
website | ||
years_active |
Can anyone offer an argument why any parameter - let alone a significant number of parameters - marked with a cross for "no" belong to one class of subject, and not the other? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Template:Infobox war faction
- Template:Infobox war faction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox militant organization (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Infobox war faction with Template:Infobox militant organization.
Sure that or else into Template:Infobox military unit? PPEMES (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Template:Infobox military award
- Template:Infobox military award (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox award (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Infobox military award with Template:Infobox award.
Seemingly large overlap means significant potential for a merge? PPEMES (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Template:Infobox identity document
- Template:Infobox identity document (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox document (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Infobox identity document with Template:Infobox document.
Destination template not particularly cluttered. Surely a general catch-all infobox could handle the total, merged scope?. PPEMES (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Do not merge These do not seem to be similar; one is for a class of documents, the other for specific individual documents. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. Do not merge 。——联合果君 (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Template:Infobox ethnonym
- Template:Infobox ethnonym (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox ethnic group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Infobox ethnonym with Template:Infobox ethnic group.
Merge into proper variables in the destination template? PPEMES (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Merge per nom - as can be seen on Fula people, for example, these are used together. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose The purposes of the templates are different. 'Ethnic group' is intended for ethnicity articles and covers info about the people -- population, location, etc. 'Ethnonym' is intended for language articles and covers non-trivial derivations of the word. It's intended for situations where the people and language may have different grammatical forms in English-language sources, and wouldn't even apply to much of the world (e.g Europe).
- Also, we'd have two competing titles, the endonym for 'Ethnonym' and the English exonym for 'Ethnic group'. Assuming these are different, which one gets priority? E.g., take the article Baganda, where people have decided that the Bantu plural rather than the root should be used as the name of the article. Should the title of 'Ethnic group' be changed to 'Ganda' to accommodate 'Ethnonym', despite disagreeing with the title of the article? And if 'Baganda' is used, how do we accommodate the 'Ethnonym' template, since that is incorrect as the root of the name? — kwami (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per kwami. {{Infobox ethnonym}} is used on both ethnicity and language articles (but mostly on language articles), and if merged it will have to be merged both into {{infobox language}} and {{infobox ethnic group}}. There might be merits to the proposal that this information belongs inside those infoboxes, but there are also good reasons to keep such lists of words separate (as for example is common in Buddhist articles: {{Buddhist term}} is used after infoboxes, as at Aṅgulimāla). Also, I don't think the post-merge increase in complexity of both target templates is going to be worth the trouble as {{Infobox ethnonym}} has a much narrower sphere of use (confined to Sub-Saharan Africa, as far as I can see). – Uanfala (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per kwami. Seen both of these templates on several African articles, and both have been useful. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Please note that Template:Infobox tribe has an equivalent variable readily included without creating any obvious problems. PPEMES (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose.——联合果君 (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Template:Life in the United States
- Template:Life in the United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:United States topics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Life in the United States with Template:United States topics.
To merge into the "culture" section? PPEMES (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, if done carefully. That way page viewers will have much more of an overall selection of history, etc., to consider when viewing the template. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- question what will this mean in terms of appearance to readers? I suspect that this template was created separately just so readers would not have to wade through the target template just to find these American people related articles. Hmains (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Template:Nature reserves of Estonia
- Template:Nature reserves of Estonia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Reason for deleting: Template_talk:Nature_reserves_of_Estonia#Deleting. Estopedist1 (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Reluctant. Is that really enough arguments for deleting it? PPEMES (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete this is a navigational template, and is intended to assist editors in navigating from one article to another, related one. It is not the job of nav templates to present an exhaustive list; that is the purpose of List of protected areas of Estonia. The contents of this template are overwhelmingly redlinks (and have been so since 2007), and it completely fails its purpose of navigation. Readers wishing to browse related articles would be much better served by a "See also" link to the list article (as is already the case for many of them). --RexxS (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Nav templates have different use than lists. The question is, should it be devided to 15 Estonian counties or rather list alphabetically all reserves. How many links there are? I'm sure there's not too much. Red links or not updated sure isn't a reason to delete. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Template:AwardsDecadeHeader
- Template:AwardsDecadeHeader (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No longer used; required Template:BDDecadesInCentury which has been deleted. – Fayenatic London 10:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)