Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 9

< September 8	September 10 >

September 9

Template:Soccer in New York City

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 September 17. Primefac (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox pageant titleholder

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. The opposition largely did not state any policy reasons for keeping the two templates separate, with many of the votes simply stating that "some of the parameters might not be used" post-merge (emphasis added). However, the sheer weight of the opposition is worth taking into account, hence the given result. NPASR provided a sandbox version of the merger and testcases are created first. Primefac (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.
per WP:INFOCOL and MOS:IB -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 21:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support 24.91.248.60 (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not all models are beauty pageant titleholders, not all beauty pageant titleholders are models. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. {{Infobox pageant titleholder}} largely duplicates fields from {{infobox model}}; the only fields that I think would need to be added to {{infobox model}} would be |title= and |competition=. In my opinion, the remaining unique fields in {{infobox pageant titleholder}} ought to be removed for the reasons given in a similar discussion about {{infobox model}} (many of these measurements are unencyclopedic, widely considered invasive, and, because they fluctuate, are subject to significant reliability problems). Rebb ing 02:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support!. AlfaRocket (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Multiple fields in pageant titleholder don't make sense for model: "weight", "measurements", etc. For a titleholder, those are at the time of the pageant title, while for a model, those will change over the course of a career. Also, of course, "competitions". Adding those to the "model" infobox will only lead to confusion - is participating in a specific prestigious show a competition? We should not try to fit square pegs into round holes just because they're partly similar, or we might as well just use {{Infobox person}} for everyone and be done with it. --GRuban (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While there is overlap between pageant titleholders and modeling, they are not the same thing. Modeling is a career that can last for many years. Most pageant winners have a set "reign" that usually only lasts a year at most. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We cannot have separate personal infoboxes for various winners of distinctions - this should be conveyed otherwise than in separate infoboxes. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a comment on the previous !votes, merging of a template (and thus the addition of some new parameters) does not mean those parameters must be used. Clearly if a "pageant titleholder" parameter makes no sense for a "model" (or vice versa), it would not be used on those pages, but that in and of itself is not a reason to prevent a merger from happening.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Not the same thing at all. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per GRuban and readd the weight etc. which was removed during this TfD. Christian75 (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose High fashion models have a certain box, it (the contents) looks completely different than that of the pageant titleholders. I really think it should stay the way that it is.Trillfendi (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in Australia

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. NPASR if there are other non-wikilink issues. Primefac (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in Australia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with just 1 entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are another accidents and incidents, see Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Australia. I don't have time to add those. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find it Good , usable !. AlfaRocket (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep, seems fine. I added some more links. Frietjes (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).