Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 21

December 21

Template:Adobe Flash Sidebar

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; deleted as G7 by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Adobe Flash Sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is redundant to Template:Adobe Flash which existed when the author created this one. The nominee only causes linkbombing and WP:REPEATLINK being broken. The number of links on this template is less, i.e. only Adobe software are listed, but that exactly the problem: It results in POV treatment of Adobe. Fleet Command (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant. Also, we should favour footer navboxes over this, sidebar, style, as logic dictates that most people will want to use them after, not before, reading the article on which they sit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep the sidebar since it highlights the most important tools and formats on the Flash Platform, while the footer introduces hundreds of minor and insignificant applications and formats that obscure the important ones. There are other examples of duplicate navboxes. See Template:Barack_Obama and Template:Barack Obama sidebar, where the entire list of related articles are listed in the footer navbox, and the most prominent or important articles listed in the sidebar. I have added the only 2 other major tools into the sidebar (FD & FDT). -- Wonderfl ^(reply) 19:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello, author of the template. You said: "it highlights the most important tools and formats on the Flash Platform". Are you sure? Because seems to me besides Adobe products, it only lists article that you yourself wrote. In addition, per WP:N only most important tools and formats can have Wikipedia articles, so everything that you didn't list there is equally important. Also you said "There are other examples of duplicate navboxes" which is the same as other stuff exists; the answer is: If other stuff shouldn't exists, delete other stuff too. Fleet Command (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually I started almost none of the articles, However, I have been actively contributing to all Flash-related articles. I'm not presenting a biased overview. For example Stage3D and Away3D, which I majorly contributed to are not included. I have only presented the biggest and most influential tools in each category. -- Wonderfl ^(reply) 20:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
      • @Wonderfl: Thanks for the reply. I stand corrected on those points. Look, when you change your verdict, you need to strike the old one by wrapping it inside <s>...</s>. Fleet Command (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • If some of the items in the navbox are more sigificant than others, they can be highlighted by emboldening, or placed in the first line. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. I concede. The argument could go on and on, and I see its no use having a duplicate navbox. Does someone have a script to remove it from all the pages? Wonderfl ^(reply) 08:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Confused. As the author, I really don't know whether to delete or keep it, and I really don't care. I designed it as a means of improving navigation within "popular" or "famous" tools, ie. to give readers a quick overview of the Flash platform and the biggest and most important tools within it. But at this point editors have mentioned that a) it seems biased towards Adobe (I actually designed it with only Adobe tools, FD & FDT were added later) and b) it presents a partial overview of all Flash-related tools and technologies compared to the bottom navbox. While these are true, the usefulness of a reduced sidebar can be debated and I'm not in the best position to do so. As a result I'm completely confused, and would like more experienced editors to pitch in their votes as well. Wonderfl ^(reply) 08:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, I am not. (Sorry if it is a bit blunt.) You see, in Wikipedia we do not employ our own judgment to say "these tools are most influential". We defer it to notability concept. The rule is: Either it is notable or not. If it is, bring it into navbox. If not, nominate for deletion. (Of course, there is a time and place limit for every human, so there are only so many articles we can nominate at a given time.) Fleet Command (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Delete. Go ahead. Delete it all. Does someone have a script to remove it from all the pages? Wonderfl ^(reply) 07:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• Delete but merge key parameters if there is a need to transclude some things in one box but not the other. . Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • As the author, I can safely say there's nothing in the sidebar that not in the footer navbox; styling, acronyms and ordering differs though. Wonderfl ^(reply) 14:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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 Indian state government

Template:Infobox Indian state government (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Infobox Indian state government with Template:Infobox legislature.
Largely redundant; the Indian box (which has just 49 transclusions) has a judiciary section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose this The current UK house of commons template is much better as it shows the breakdown of each party in a much neater way and the template is easier to understand. I don't know the technical side of it but changing it seems pointless to me and would annoy me greatly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.77.86 (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • What does the current UK house of commons template have to do with this? It's unaffected by this proposal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. nom does not provide content or parameter translation. Saying "redudant" is not an argumetn (ant then: what is 'largely'?). Incorrect proposal. -DePiep (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No parameter mapping is required. Once again, you are inventing "rules" on the fly. You have nothing to say about the merits or otherwise of the proposal; your objection (one of several made within the space of a few minutes; and like many you have made previously) appears vexatious. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
    • To closing admin: "You have nothing to say about the merits or otherwise of the proposal; your objection appears vexatious. ". PA, disruptive injections. I propose closure as no consensus for disrupted discussion by the nom. Arguing useless from here. -DePiep (talk) 08:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Good luck with that. Noted that you still have nothing to say about the merits or otherwise of the proposal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep or rename as the legislature branch of government does not incorporate the judicial branch. However, perhaps if all 49 transclusions are judiciary-related, them maybe rename to "Judiciary of India" or something like that and fix it to look like {{Template:Infobox Icelandic court}} or something. Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose; Keep. India has separate template unique for its entries, not like template used generally for multiple other countries. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • There is indeed a separate template for India; that is not disputed - indeed, it is the reason for the nomination. However, you make no case as to why India needs a separate template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox astro object

Template:Infobox astro object (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (16 transclusions)

Template:Infobox cluster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (160 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox astro object with Template:Infobox cluster.
Most instances of the "astro object" template are on articles about clusters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose We would then lose a template for astronomical objects that do not have specific template for itself. And we have many cluster articles, so it should have its own infobox template, and should not be merged into astro object either. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No, we would not. We would have one template suitable for use for both clusters and other objects. The requirement for separate infoboxes in contingent on the necessary parameters, not the number of instances (which, at 160, is in any case quite small). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Your proposal nomination doesn't indicate which way the merger is to proceed, (such as merging astro objects into cluster). Merger into the generic will greatly complicate parameterizing open star clusters and consistency between the various star cluster templates. The generic template should not support parameters for values for a specific type. Template maintenance should be open to members of thw wikiproject, not so restricted as to not have members available to maintain the wikiproject's own templates. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
      • The nomination doesn't indicate which way the merger is to proceed, because that is something for this discussion (note: it is a discussion, not a vote) to decide. Nor is this necessarily a question of merging one template into another; we could, for example, merge both templates into a new one, with a new name. Or we could merge the parameters of Infobox astro object into Infobox cluster, hypothetically supposing the later had better technical features, but then give the resultant template a new name, or call it "Infobox astro object". And note that these templates are not owned by any wikiproject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Conditional support – it may be, as long as there are other templates for other unknown objects. For instance, Hanny's Voorwerp. SkyFlubbler (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • There are many more object types than we have specific infobox templates for, and not every object currently has an infobox, so if we eliminate the generic box, we will no longer have an infobox to use on such articles. We do not have a void infobox AFAIK, for instance, nor one for LQGs, black holes, objects of unknown character, etc. While we have many open star cluster articles, so should easily be able to support a separate infobox type for its own articles. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Nobody is proposing to "eliminate the generic box". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose – "Most instances of the 'astro object' template are on articles about clusters" means the original editors didn't use the right template (probably b/c "infobox: cluster" is vague and currently up for renaming to "infobox: open cluster") and someone needs to edit those pages; it doesn't mean the infoboxes should be merged. Would you propose a merge between 'infobox: globular cluster' and 'astro object' if most astro objects referred to globulars? (the answer should be a resounding NO) 'Astro object' is very broad, 'Open cluster' is not. Both are useful within their respective scopes.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  14:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No, it means that the templates are largely interchangeable, because most of their parameters are the same. Note also that the astro object infobox has a |type= parameter which can take a value of [[Open cluster]], or whatever". You advance no reasons was to why separate infoboxes are needed. The requested move you cite was made after this proposal, by the first objector to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The purpose of an infobox is to immediately identify the type of object to the reader. A merge destroys this, no matter how well-intentioned.
      'Infobox: cluster' is not distinguishible simply b/c no one put links to open cluster information on the bottom yet, as is normally done on {{infobox globular cluster}}, {{infobox galaxy cluster}}, {{infobox supercluster}} templates. I support an edit to put links to open cluster info at the bottom of 'Infobox: cluster' before I support a merge of cluster and globular cluster, before I support a merge of astro object with cluster. I also support an edit to 'Infobox astro object' to include a broader set of parameters applicable to disparate phenomena than I do any merge. Also, the community should do what best serves the reader, common sense, and organisation than arbitrary nomination times.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  15:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
      • The purpose of an infobox is to immediately identify the type of object to the reader I have no idea what led you to believe that, but no, it is not. Even if it were, the |type= does that adequateley. Merging redundant infoboxes best serves the reader, common sense, and organisation, as explained at Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
        • From the WikiProject:Astronomy. Your reference is to an essay. This is not policy, as noted in its header, and I believe reasonable control should be left to the parent WikiProject (excessive use aside; i.e. your other recent noms here seem justifiable).
          From Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation: "A separate infobox isn't a measure of importance, but of difference from other subjects." Open clusters are very different than an infobox which literally refers to all other astronomical bodies which don't yet fall into a template. You missed several key parameters which exist in {{infobox astro object}} but not in {{infobox cluster}}: "propmo", "radvel", "pecmo". The former 2 can, in fact, arguably be incorporated into cluster with little problem. The latter, however, refers to objects at cosmological distances, which in no way applies to clusters. If this escapes you, please stop merging outside of your scope. In fact, I could, and should, add several other parameters to astro object to be even more all-encompassing, and potentially EXclusive of open clusters, be it applied to some non-cluster object.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  19:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
          • I didn't say it was a policy; I said it explained why merging similar infoboxes is a good thing, which it does. But thank you; as its author, I've clarified the wording. And no, having some parameters which are not mutually common does not prevent us merging infoboxes where a large number are used mutually. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
            • If/when {{infobox astro object}} is fully developed (ideally it contains most/all parameters from all other existing astronomy related infobox templates, as its description suggests), then, by your logic, all other astronomy infoboxes should be merged into {{infobox astro object}}. I hope you see the exception to your rule in this case.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  22:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
              • If their parameters are largely overlapping then yes, they should. Do you contend that that (overlapping parameters) is the case? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Note: The following is a complete list of parameters which are in {{Infobox astro object}} but not in {{Infobox cluster}}: |image=, |caption=, |credit=, |mass_msol=, |age=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You missed |propmo=, |radvel=, |pecmo=; |pecmo= being the most relevant to this discussion.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  22:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • No, I didn't - but I have the two template names the wrong way round. That should read: parameters which are in {{Infobox cluster}} but not in {{Infobox astro object}} = |image=, |caption=, |credit=, |mass_msol=, |age=. The image parameter set should always be available; which leaves just two parameters distinguishing the cluster infobox from the more generic one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose; the purpose of the two templates is drastically different. One is a specific template for open clusters, the other a generic template for all astronomical objects without a better category. By this logic, merging {{Infobox astro object}} with any astronomy infoboxes would be good, which is clearly false. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The purpose (by which you mean subject) is irrelevant; the parameters are largely overlapping. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Not anymore.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  19:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
      • You've added a load of parameters to {{Infobox astro object}} (are these used anywhere?); but {{Infobox cluster}} is still, apart from the two parameters already discussed, just as subset of it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
        • See my 'Strong Oppose' comments above. I'm done here unless consensus starts showing support.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  21:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• 50-50– I think they are very distinct, one is for clusters and one for objects not yet having any category (or with an unclear nature). But for all of the 57 billion celestial objects discovered to date, I think it's unlikely that they're very unusual. Astronomers already classed them, and we have the templates. I also think it would be very unlikely that Template:Infobox astro object will be used, since we already knew a lot about our universe. But comment, there are no infoboxes concerning LQG's, stellar streams, and others, so if they are notable then we can create them. However, we must note that of all the dozens of LQGs discovered to date, only three have their own articles (Huge-LQG, U1.11 and the Clowes–Campusano LQG). So the choice is yours, my friends. SkyFlubbler (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • you already lodged an opinion, this is a second !vote, you should change it into a comment instead. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying that we should create a separate template for every object, only for those that we have significant number of articles for which a separate template can be supported (such as open clusters) separate from a general template. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment– If the intent here is to, over time, migrate templates to have some sort of awesome connectivity with WikiData, then great, lead with that. However, a full and clear explanation of that intent, WikiData, and a project timeline should be made, and not a weak "well... the parameters are kinda the same" excuse. The reactions from the community will be vastly different.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  21:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You're confusing two issues. The two templates should be merged, regardless of Wikidata. And we're likely to move toward importing data from Wikidata, regardless of whether or not they are merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you for clarifying.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  17:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. No parameter mapping is provided, so the proposal is incomplete=incorrect. Listing a difference (which was added later) is a start, but does not prove or explain what or how content is to be merged (semantics, knowledge). -DePiep (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No parameter mapping is required. Once again, you are inventing "rules" on the fly. You have nothing to say about the merits or otherwise of the proposal; your objection (one of several made within the space of a few minutes; and like many you have made previously) appears vexatious. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You have nothing to say about .... 'Nuf said. I propose procedural close as no consensus, for nom disruptitive discussion behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Merge to infobox astro object or a new name, and everyone here needs to assume good faith and quit calling this stuff "disruptive." Focus on the efficiency of not having 10 gazillion templates for every nuance. add parameters as needed, no need to make the changes before the proposal is decided, obviously. Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• Asking comment— If we merge this, what would be the templates for other astronomical objects? Just for example: Green Bean Galaxies, hypervelocity clouds, dark clouds, galaxy filaments, SCP 06F6, etc. I assure this would simplify templates, but you cannot mix oil and water. I would be an absolute faggot if I created an article which scientists say as very mysterious and very rare, and finding no templates. Just to assure you there are dozens of types of astronomical objects with no templates. So what will be the implications and effects if you merge them? SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 10:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • What template would you use at present? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment— I'm not sure, but did you put into consideration the distinction of the two templates? I think you are saying like: "Hey! I propose something. Let's mix oil and water because they're both liquids.". Let's put it again, in a very broad perspective. If we merge astro object with star clusters, that would cause a giant problem on the WikiProject Astronomy. There are other objects with no templates, and they need the astro object infobox. You are trying to mix a cat and a mouse. Please give us the sinister implications and reasons why we need to merge this. Their similarities in the data does not necessarily mean we must merge them. But just to be honest I don't see significant similarities of the two templates. Regards? SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 14:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Rather than discussing your overly-vivid imaginings, lets return to your specific question: You're not sure what template would be used, now, but you want to have an answer to that question for some hypothetical future? That's not relevant to the issue at hand. Please, though, explain, exactly, how merging these templates "would cause a giant [sic] problem on the WikiProject Astronomy"? Regarding your latter question; I have already referred to Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Okay, you want to know the problems when you merge this? I will plan to make a big project for the branch of large-scale structures. I am now researching about papers about the Komberg–Kravstov–Lukash LQGs. They are about 20+ LQGs there. I plan to make a single article discussing all of them: "Komberg–Kravstov–Lukash LQGs". And not only that, I will plan to create articles about superclusters, galaxy filaments, and notable voids. I will start at early March and it will be 40+ articles. Now, as far as you are concerned there are no templates for LQGs, voids and galaxy filaments. There are no templates for associations of objects other than galaxies. There are lots of them, associations of nebulae (Lyman-alpha blobs). All of them need the infobox astro object template. That's why it will cause a giant problem. purpose of infobox astro object is to be the template of unusual and rare astronomical objects with no templates on Wiki. If we merge them, surely the unusual astronomical objects will have no more templates. SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 22:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
      • No. You again assert that there will be a problem, but do not say what it will be, nor why you supose that there will be a problem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Okay. "What"– Many astronomical articles that need the infobox astro object template would lose it. "Why"– The infobox astro object has very specific reason and purpose. It is very different from star clusters. I suppose that there will be a problem because infobox astro object has a very different use. SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 00:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
          • "Many astronomical articles that need the infobox astro object template would lose it". False, Please don't invent reasons to object, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
            • What?!? You're just ignoring me. What makes you think that I will invent reasons? That is true, as many articles really need that template. Merging them would do more harm than good. And what do you mean I've invented it? It was the same as IP 67.70.35.44's comment: "We would then lose a template for astronomical objects that do not have specific template for itself". Many astronomical articles would be affected by this merge. They're made for very different purposes. SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 13:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose; Keep. Unique template to clusters and not to celestial objects generally. Having gone through the entire listings for 12/21, I openly question whether you have any knowledge of basic astronomy. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • While I openly question whether you have any knowledge of basic Wikipedia template function, the key issue is whether the the similarity of the parameters in the nominated templates, not the differences between clusters and (other) celestial objects generally. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Like what I've said, you cannot mix oil and water just because they're both liquids. The same as this: their identical parameters does not necessarily mean that they must be merged. Obviously you are like merging a shoe store to a book store. If you merge them into one, it's either they will ran out of books or they will ran out of shoes. As far as you know they have both parameters because they're both astronomical objects. In astronomy, many objects are similar, in parameters and characteristics, but they're distinct in a way. They're not as identical as you might think. I checked the two templates and the one links to astro objects and the other to star clusters. Regards? SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 22:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Your analogies are false. A better analogy would be merging a template about buildings that are shoe shops with a template about buildings that are book shops. And we have: {{Infobox building}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
        • My analogy is "false" because you don't get what I'm saying. Infobox astro object has a very different purpose. Colloquically speaking, these templates are both for astronomy; they have parameters for absolute magnitude, epoch, coordinates, etc., because those are the basic data for an astronomical object, so expect that they will have very similar parameters, except for one. The star cluster templates link to star clusters at the very bottom, whil infobox astro object is for astronomical object article. Suppose an article about a void has the infobox astro object. If we merge it, one will read the article about a void but in a infobox about a star cluster. That would make confusion. SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 00:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Your analogy is false because it does not apply here. What "books" or "shoes" would a merged template run out of? Your assertion that "one will read the article about a void but in a infobox about a star cluster." is equally false. Since you continue to make such unfounded assertions, I'll be devoting less of my time to replying to them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
            • I just applied it to show what would be the problem when we merged this. That analogy is not on Wiki, it is like an illustration. Okay, let's apply it to Wiki. Suppose the infobox galaxy and starbox templates. They have data on classifications, magnitudes, epochs, etc, but should we merge them? Certainly not, because a galaxy is a kingdom of stars, while a star is just a star. Please take into consideration their distinction. Infobox star cluster is for small groups of stars, while infobox astro object is a serving template for different astronomical objects. But wait a minute, you said my assertion is false. Why? (bold for extremeness) Why those assertions are false? I answered you with utmost respect, but all you can say is my reasons are false? As far you are concerned you are against WP:CIV. At my review in your comments, you are not displaying an appopriate behavior. You can just say: "SkyFlubbler, your assertions are not quite true because....", not those kind of comments. Explain it to me. SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 13:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox crater data

Template:Infobox crater data (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox feature on celestial object (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox crater data with Template:Infobox feature on celestial object.
Largely similar; craters are a subset of features. Keep as a redirect for craters on Earth, if used for any. Note that the "feature" template is already used on several crater articles, such as Aladdin (crater). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: 3 dependencies: I don't know the nom-mechanics, but I would think that {{Mercury crater data}}, {{Venus crater data}}, and {{Infobox Mars crater}} need to be mentioned alongside {{Infobox crater data}} in the nom since they are dependents and will be affected.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  18:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. The first pair are simply redirects; the latter a wrapper. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • {{Infobox Mercury crater}}, {{Infobox Venus crater}}, and {{Infobox Mars crater}}, then are all the direct dependents of {{Infobox crater data}} and should be made more visible in the nom header.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  21:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Parameter analysis missing. -DePiep (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No parameter analysis is required. Once again, you are inventing "rules" on the fly. You have nothing to say about the merits or otherwise of the proposal; your objection (one of several made within the space of a few minutes; and like many you have made previously) appears vexatious. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose until we look at the other crater infoboxes. (But WTF is "parameter analysis?" That is not a requirement here) Seems that Mercury, Venus and Mars could all be merged to the general crater one. I don't think a merge to feature on celestial object is the way to go, I think there are enough craters (must be thousands out there already mapped) to justify a stand-alone. I WOULD support a merge of the "child" crater boxes, though. Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose; Keep. Unique template to craters and not to a general feature. Having gone through the entire listings for 12/21, I openly question whether you have any knowledge of basic astronomy. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Thor Dockweiler: Having taken the trouble to make an ad hominem attack, perhaps you could now take the trouble to say why you believe separate templates are needed; not least given that "the 'feature' template is already used on several crater articles, such as Aladdin (crater)"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox lunar mare

Template:Infobox lunar mare (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox Lunar crater}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Merge. They are too similar. But I support using the title style of Infobox lunar mare. Fleet Command (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• Merge to a combined template, named {{Infobox lunar feature}}; unlike the open cluster/astronomical object discussion above, these are both similar features, and thus a single infobox is appropriate. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Merge Definitely redundant. To what name, I don't care. Lunar feature would be OK with me too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 20:58, 27 December 2014
• Strong Oppose; Keep. Unique template to lunar mare (plural of maria). Lunar maria does not equal lunar crater. They are two totally different features. Diameter may not be the best term in maria. Having gone through the entire listings for 12/21, I openly question whether you have any knowledge of basic astronomy. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Another ad hominem attack. That aside, the issue is not how similar or not mare and craters are; bit how similar the templates are. Would you care to address that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Please refrain from personal attacks, focus on the issue, which is if we need separate infoboxes for separate lunar features or if we can merge them, somehow. Montanabw^(talk) 02:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose These are two different kinds of features. It is too confusing for our writers to have to use a wrongly named template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Graeme Bartlett: And here I thought you admins have the power to rename stuff! {{Infobox lunar feature}} sounds like a great name. Also, redirects are just fine too. Fleet Command (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
    • We indeed do have the power to rename stuff. So do all other autoconfirmed users such as yourself. That doesn't mean we will move something that will obviously be contentious on a whim; if there's any reasonable chance of it being contested, it has to go through a process. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keeping this template as a redirect would resolve the name issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Merge and rename both to {{Infobox lunar feature}}. Barring that, at least merge... Montanabw^(talk) 02:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Rename per Montanabw, and merge if appropriate (lunar crater isn't tagged) —PC-XT+ 00:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I posted on Template talk:Infobox Lunar crater, if that suffices —PC-XT+ 00:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Note: A merge is unnecesary; the two templates already have identical parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Solar eclipse2

Template:Infobox Solar eclipse2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Solar eclipse (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Solar eclipse2 with Template:Infobox Solar eclipse.
#2 is a wrapper for the original, for no obvious purpose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose It is used in conjunction with template databases, like {{Solareclipse200_db|Infobox Solar eclipse2|2006Mar29}} Tom Ruen (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

That's {{Solareclipse200_db}}; what an impenetrable (and undocumented) mess; a barrier to editing for all but a few editors. That data should be in infobox templates in the respective articles (and eventually in Wikidata). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Solareclipse200_db and others were exported from a spreadsheet, and reduces the chance for errors, and allows data to be presented in different ways. It was first setup by another user, and I just copied what he did. I don't know what wikidata is, but if its easier, I'd support a conversion eventually. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support; I see no reason for a separate template, when all it does is wrap the other. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Apparently I was mistaken in what the template did. Therefore, I strike my support to merge. However, the current system is very confusing to anyone other than those who created it, and thus a rename at the very least is certainly necessary. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The second template DOES NOT "wrap" the other template. It substitutes values from the db file. If its useful, it can be renamed for clarity. Tom Ruen (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    • And it should not; as I noted above, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
      • It's not clear what you are proposing. Tom Ruen (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm proposing that we do away with having two versions of the infobox; and that the specific data should be in written directly in infobox templates in the respective articles (and eventually in Wikidata). How we achieve that is a mater for this discussion to decide, but the result would probably look like this (which was achieved by simply Substing the nested templates in turn). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
          • REALLY? You're going to do this by hand for some 495 cases, and then if NASA updates its calculational database, we're going to again hand-edit 500 articles to make the corrections? Tom Ruen (talk) 11:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
            • No. The conversion would be best done by a bot or a tool like AWB. And future updates, if any, can be applied by a bot; or eventually via importing the data from Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
              • I don't have access to a bot or a tool like AWB (whatever that is). The current template works fine. You complain templates are hard for users, and then offer something even more inaccessible. Why not keep it as is. There are many other such template systems as well in-use. Tom Ruen (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
                • No-one is asking you to use AWB. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
                  • So why not keep it in a system I understand? The data-field templates are hard to setup, but easy to use and extend when needed. If a better system exists, and I have time to learn what it is, then I can evaluate when to move to it. Replacing a good system with an inferior direct substitution one because someday a better system will be setup someday by some mysterious unknown person makes no sense to me. Tom Ruen (talk) 10:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
                    • Because the more generic system is understood by far more editors than just you; and because putting the data into Wikidata makes it available to all 280+ Wikipedias. The commoner system is not inferior to the current one, which is dependent on the knowledge of one or two (or any small group of) editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
                      • So how about WAIT and keep as-is, UNTIL someone wants to take the time to move it to WikiData, assuming it is so great like you promise? Tom Ruen (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
                        • I wasn't referring to Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
                          • Andy: "I wasn't referring to Wikidata." yes you were. "No-one us asking you to use AWB." Yes, you did Andy. I note that you are going into word-play again, evading the serious querstions the an editor asks. -DePiep (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
                            • Both of your claims are utterly bogus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• don't merge yet. it would be a good idea to rewrite this using LUA, moving the database pages (e.g., {{Solareclipse200_db}}) to subpages of the lua module, but that will take some engineering. Frietjes (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • We most absolutely should not bury content in Lua modules. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I understand the desire to place the data in the hands of editors who do not know Lua. It should eventually be in wikidata, but if Lua is better at using wikidata for infoboxes, I don't see the harm in starting to convert, now. —PC-XT+ 00:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Above Tomruen clearly explains that the template provides centralised data, for single-point maintenance. Manually maintain data in-article instead of through a template, really? Nom could have learned that, and conclude withdrawal. (Instead, nom draws out a discussion thread into wordplay & evasions; disrupting and derailing a discussion is another valid reason to not honour a proposal). -DePiep (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Centralising data" in obscure, undocumented, one-off sub-templates is not how we build Wikipedia. Your objection (one of several made within the space of a few minutes; and like many you have made previously) appears vexatious. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

After your twisting replies in the subthread above, don't expect me to reply serious. Already you have started the buildup for a snotty snub here, didn't you? -DePiep (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

DePiep, your personalizing of this issue is not appropriate. Please confine your comments to the technical aspects of this request. Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Merge and combine parameters: Use technical skills to make sure no links get fouled up. Us a bot so it's seamless, seems this is an artifact of an older, clunkier syntax and needs to be streamlined and modernized. Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • What do you mean "combine parameters"? Tom Ruen (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose; Keep. Too destructive of current set-up. Prior items re astro objects seem absolutely stupid to me. Having gone through the entire listings for 12/21, I openly question whether you have any knowledge of basic astronomy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thor Dockweiler (talk • contribs) 07:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You seem to keep making the same ad hominem attack; it's a distraction, and this is not the place to comment on other TfD/Ms. The purpose of this TfD is to change the current setup, which is harmful in its inacesibility. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep for now or merge as autofill — This should eventually be in wikidata, but could be kept or luafied until then. I'd prefer it have documentation, though. —PC-XT+ 08:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm adding support for autofilling parameters. If this is done, we can later change the template, (or module, preferably,) to use wikidata instead of this database. I would rather not fill in all the templates, then remove the data again when converting to wikidata. It seems a waste of time, (though I know it would not really be that much.) If it would be better to keep the templates separate, and not use autofill, then my !vote is a straight keep. —PC-XT+ 00:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not sure the nom understands what he/she is proposing. It would break the template and the hundreds of articles that use it.  — TimL • talk 23:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Tornado year (EF scale)

Template:Infobox Tornado year (EF scale) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Tornado Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Tornado year (EF scale) with Template:Infobox Tornado Year.
Very similar templates. "EF scale" refers to Enhanced Fujita scale, which can be accommodated in a combined tempalte by a choice of parameters, or a switch. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Hmm... I will consider undertaking such a merge if I find the time. Dustin (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Merge - The templates are nearly redundant. Let's just merge in the extra features of Infobox Tornado year (EF scale) (if any), and then fix up the corresponding tornado articles once that is done. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
• Merge:Per all of the above. Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support; Merge. Andy actually is right on one. Per all of above, but with no loss of information data. But Andy should do the work. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom —PC-XT+ 08:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox air density

Template:Infobox air density (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hard-coded instance of {{Infobox property}}, of which it is the only use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Subst and delete. Has only three transclusion (2 are sandboxes); accepts no parameters. Fleet Command (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. Before disposing consider evaluate the contents and compare with other similar infobox. Scientific texts should have a chance to improve their information and presentation: properties, its units, equations and use are important for understanding its context in scientific texts. Maybe expand the use is a better destiny than discard. After all I see still a long way to transform the informative texts of school in encyclopedic articles containing knowledge. As the editor I will abstain from voting, but I believe quality was more important than quantity. As for the parameterization I would be pleased if someone would help me and improve the code. RookTorre (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• New Comment. As there was no answer: When made this template I used as a reference this architecture and hierarchy:

Template:Infobox element >> Template:Infobox oxygen >> Oxygen

Template:Infobox property >> Template:Infobox air density >> Density of air

Is not the first time that the rules are applied in unbalanced way. We should delete all templates for specific chemical elements? (It is an obvious ironic way, just to emphasize my amazement). Me looks exactly the same case. (As I would expect from a copy) RookTorre (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• • There are no "rules" to apply. What answer did you expect? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Nothing. I stopped edit the wiki because of rules-based reversions(in my other account). After months I went back now and in my first significant edition that happens...Better I stop editing, just edit who knows what does. ty and apologize for the inconvenience. -- RookTorre (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Creator clearly explains that maintenance is helped this way. That beats the outdated "used only once" non-issue. -DePiep (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The template creator has nothing to say about "helping maintenance". You too have nothing to say about the merits or otherwise of the proposal; your objection (one of several made within the space of a few minutes; and like many you have made previously) appears vexatious. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The template creator has nothing to say about ... , You too have nothing to say about ... Sure. -DePiep (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Note to closing admin. This behaviour by the nom is inexcusable. Note that they also chased away an editor who came here to improve wikipedia, and got the response 'There are no "rules" to apply', which is simply unacceptable put-down behaviour in a discussion. When disrupting and derailing the discussion, each and any argument by the nom becomes idle. I propose & expect this one be closed as "no consensus due to disruptive discussion by nom". I have no confidence that from here any serious argument added here would receive due weight. -DePiep (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Merge or delete: If not actually in use, then the main template can incorporate any maintenance parameters. Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose; Keep. This infobox certainly helps the article. I am unaware of any rule that requires an infobox to have numerous articles link to it. What infobox would you use instead? Now that I am at the end of the list I am beginning to have the impression you hate infoboxes. Why? Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Gidi Up

Template:Gidi Up (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per NENAN. Only two links are active. Stanleytux (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: The template has four active links on the main subject, episodes, and the seasons. These are not pages the the average reader will easily be able to look up without a nav box, NENAN obviously doesn't apply here. Besides, more articles on this subject (series) will definitely be created - then the need for a navbox.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: NENAN definitely applies here because all I can find is just two links, a parent article which is fewer than five links. This shouldn't have been created since the pages for it aren't yet ready. Stanleytux (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: @Stanleytux: If you exclude the main article, there are three active links. The Episodes article and the two seasons articles. NENAN recommends that five articles (excluding the primary article) need to be present in order for a navbox to be present. If you want to be techinical like that, the navbox can be deleted. However, it doesn't make sense to do so because the navbox will be recreated once two more articles spring up. Versace1608 (Talk) 15:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Such a small number of links can easily be incorporated into article prose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. I generally hate nominations that say "Per WP:NENAN" unless they say which part of NENAN. But this one makes sense: The navbox bears four links, all of which are either in the compulsory infoboxes of the linked articles or can be. So this template makes no sense. Fleet Command (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• Delete seems that we are still in a short list, the other episodes can be a see also list. Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:SPACEUSER

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

Now exist the {{ROOTPAGENAME}} variable. Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 02:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Subst and delete per nom. (Template is pseudo-wrapper for {{ROOTPAGENAME}} anyway.) 62 transclusions should be easy to deal with. Fleet Command (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Appears redundant and is confusing. Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Strong opposal Not sure of the technical side to this, but I would like the infobox template of the UK house of commons to stay the same, it looks much neater as it is now and changing it would be just pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.77.86 (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This template was created in the Wikipedia in Spanish only because there was a variable to do the same to {{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}|1}}, now exist {{ROOTPAGENAME}}. In Wikipedia in Spanish was completely unlinked, this template is obsolete. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 20:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Subst and delete as redundant —PC-XT+ 08:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)