Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cyphoidbomb (talk | contribs) at 03:45, 21 March 2017 (Template:Infobox name module: Clarification request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

March 20

Unused. Created in 3 edits over 3 minutes edits on 10 September 2016‎ by User:AppleRED, then nothing. Purpose is unclear. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Global Force Wrestling personnel. Same reasons, GFW hasn't a regular roster. It's impossible to create an article or template about it. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Small wrestling stable. Just 4 members, I don't think the SES needs a template for just 4 members. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Routemap-Infobox with Template:Infobox UK railway.
Two templates serving basically the same purpose. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
14:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox name module with Template:Infobox Chinese.
Two translation/transliteration templates which have similar purposes, except {{Infobox Chinese}} has a lot more options and is often used as a standalone infobox instead of as an infobox module. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
02:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What exactly would the merge entail? Would the merged template retain the functionality and behavior of the individual templates or would it result in a huge headache on thousands of articles (both are heavily utilised templates with over 10,000 transclusions between them)? It's important to note they transclude in very different ways: Infobox Chinese is an entire infobox while Infobox name module just adds some sub-fields to an existing infobox. And while it's true that Infobox name module has fewer options than Infobox Chinese, its stripped down format makes Infobox name module a bit more general purpose i.e. an editor can use it to add any language field to an infobox. In principle though I am not against the merge. Betty Logan (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we need some clarification: is the proposal that we merge Infobox Chinese into Infobox name module so that {{Infobox name module}} would become the all-inclusive template? Infobox name module is used with Indic scripts, not just Chinese, so my concern is that we are promoting wide, not narrow usage. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Hindu temple should be merged into Infobox religious building as it takes in similar fields to other religious buildings that are redundant. Template box can also be automatically recolored for differences. --Cs california (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]