Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 September 3#Template:Infobox cricket ground

< September 2
September 4 >

September 3

[edit]

Template:Campaignbox Mongol invasions and conquests

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 to merge * Pppery * it has begun... 03:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Campaignbox Mongol invasions and conquests into Template:Mongol Empire, specifically the "Campaigns & Battles" section, of which it is pretty much a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, placed inappropriately as a WP:LEADSIDEBAR without a good excuse. Reason: WP:LEADSIDEBAR and WP:TFD#REASONS #2. NLeeuw (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I recommend reading User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Campaignboxes#1 war rule as a further rationale. NLeeuw (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion per all "Oppose" votes. Beluga732 (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, "all "Oppose" votes"? There was only 1 so far, and it is conditional, saying other templates are worse than this one. NLeeuw (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Merging from

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 * Pppery * it has begun... 03:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This template and {{Being merged}} do exactly the same thing. From a quick look, it appears {{Being merged}}:

  • has a much more solid code and is more flexible,
  • has more parameters,
  • has better documentation and templatedata, and
  • handles its params more gracefully in case they are not provided. (in comparison, {{Merging from}} contradicts itself if the target is not given)

Also, its codebase is similar to that of {{Being split}}, which, unlike merging, is the only template that can be used for splitting after consensus. I don't see why we'd need two of these.

Oh, and here are the WLH stats:

FaviFake (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep FaviFake have you read the text? It's substantially different, and, for certain cases better. If you are merging there is always a target article. This template is designed to go on the target article. The other is generic. :Personally I would prefer we only use {{Merging from}} and {{Merging to}} (currently a redirect).
These correspond to the {{Merge from}} and {{Merge to}} templates. The direction of the merge is important.
If you want to mess about you could construct a common template, or nice slow lua module as a back end. But the semantics of template names are important.
Next time why not talk to me first? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]
have you read the text? It's substantially different, and, for certain cases better
Could you mention in which specific cases it's better? It doesn't even link to the instructions for merging… Besides, we can always add a param to change the text, but, again, I don't understand in which cases it'd be more useful as a separate template.
If you are merging there is always a target article.
Not necessarily. Oftentimes, the target is discussed within the discussion, and {{Being merged}} does an excellent job at accomodating that possibily. Instead, {{Merging from}} doesn't even allow you to specify it's just one article that's going to be merged, if the target is unknown.
Personally I would prefer we only use {{Merging from}} and {{Merging to}}
Again, {{Being merged}} already does that with the |direction=to/from parameter. Please see Template:Being_merged/testcases. We definitely don't need three templates doing the same thing.
The direction of the merge is important.
I agree!!
But the semantics of template names are important.
I don't understand what you mean. What's important and for what?
I guess the question I'm asking is: What does this template do that the others don't, exactly? The others already support direction of merge, lack of target or direction, etc. FaviFake (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The target is the page that the template is on. How can you have "lack of target"?
It is useful to have the text {{Merging from… or {{Merging to… at the top of the source - we are all human, and a label when we are working is a good reminder.
{{Being merged}} does not accommodate multiple source pages. It requires more typing. (This is actually a classic, you can combine any number of templates by adding new named arguments. People always want to combine but it's not necessarily a good idea, it's for example relatively easy to remember "merge from" → "merging from" and "merge to" → "merging to", but remembering the names and values of parameters is harder.)
{{Being merged}} doesn't make the source page(s) clear.
As for "instructions" (we generally don't give instructions on Wikipedia do we?) for merging, {{Merging from}} does refer to the talk pages. If you wanted to provide an override, you could do so very simply.
Also, as I said above you could maintain the semantic advantage and make one a wrapper of the other. This will please people who think we are going to be constantly updating these templates, by reducing the mythical "maintenance load".
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]
The target is the page that the template is on. How can you have "lack of target"?
Not always and not necessarily. See the mess at placeholder name, for example
It is useful to have the text {{Merging from… or {{Merging to… at the top of the source.
Yeah but that doesn't mean that the underlying code and the text displayed should be completely different and incompatible...
we generally don't give instructions on Wikipedia do we?
yes we do?????
As for "instructions" for merging, {{Merging from}} does refer to the talk pages. If you wanted to provide an override, you could do so very simply.
Or you could just... use the existing template, which already does that? Why would we add a new parameter to mimick another template that is used in the same way for the same purpose?
Your argument seems to be: if someone is editing the page, and they are editing it using the source editor (VE doesn't have these problems), then in that case it is apparently easier for them to type a template that is different from the template that they will inevitably also have to type on the source page.
Personally, it seems like a weak argument for maintaining two very different templates that, again, do the same thing. FaviFake (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd for someone who barely edits articles and more on the Project space to make any such argument because redundancy helps out in the end. WP:NOTBROKE is a very basic guideline. You keep on messing around in the Project space not understanding the 20 years of this project. – The Grid (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what "Do not fix links to redirects that are not broken" has to do with a TfD deletion discussion. You may be looking for WP:AINTBROKE, but I don't see how this is apparently a perfect situation.
Also, could you elaborate on the need of this "20-year project" to have two different codebases for two templates that fulfill the same purpose? This is not redundancy, this is a duplication of efforts and, in my opinion, a waste of template editors' time. FaviFake (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you know what to point at, how about you literally stop editing on ANYTHING with the Project space. You are flat out disruptive with your edits. WP:CIR applies at every new edit you make on the Project space. – The Grid (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not, now that the AN/I thread has been closed!
Now, do you want to keep talking about your fascination with my edits or partecipate in the consensus-building process? FaviFake (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both, but make some stuff simpler and clearer, and maybe introduce a new template.
Both templates say that there was a discussion and the discussion has come to an end. In that case it should be pretty clear which pages are being merged into which pages, and the templates should clearly communicate that.
{{Merging from}} does a good job in that respect, but {{Being merged}} seems rather undecided. {{Merging to}} is a redirect to {{Being merged}}, so I thought that the template should only be used on a page that is the source of a merge and will soon become a redirect. But {{Being merged}} has a "dir" parameter, and it defaults to "with". The word "with" doesn't really tell us what's happening. Is content being added or removed on a page where {{Being merged}} appears?
Maybe we should make {{Merging to}} a template instead of a redirect. Currently, when I use {{Merging to|Foo}}, it says "... merge this page with Foo ...". Confusing. I have to use {{Merging to|Foo|dir=to}} to make it say "... merge this page into Foo ...". That's not what I expect from a template called {{Merging to}}. Why do I have to use the word "to" twice?
Once {{Merging to}} is a template on its own with a clear message, we can relegate {{Being merged}} to the cases where the discussion hasn't reached a clear decision, or where the decision was "let's start the merge, and along the way we'll figure out which pages we'll keep and which will become a redirect". (Doesn't sound like a good decision to me, but maybe it happens.)
Sure, having three similar templates is a bit redundant, but as @Rich Farmbrough said, template names are important. If the templates were named {{Merging from}} and {{Merging to}}, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
And these templates are being used all the time, but edited much less often. If some edits have to be made in three templates, that's no big deal.
They are being used by editors who don't spend much time reading the instructions. For example, if I place {{Merging to|Foo}} on a page, I expect it to say "merge to". I don't want to spend time figuring out why it isn't working. A bit of redundancy makes life a bit harder for a few template editors, but makes life much easier for many template users.
— Chrisahn (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very similar discussion, three years ago: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 October 25#Template:Merging from. The proposal was to turn {{Merging from}} into an alias for {{Being merged}} with the dir=from parameter. The result was "no consensus". — Chrisahn (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked some of the pages where {{Being merged}} is used directly, e.g. Humour and Caustic humour. Obviously, the messages would be much clearer if {{Merging from}} and (a better version of) {{Merging to}} were used instead. Same for Range of a projectile and Projectile motion – one is merged into the other, but the templates don't tell us which is the target. We have to click the discussion link to find out.
In a nutshell: Users are lazy. They don't know how to use these templates correctly. And that's OK - they shouldn't have to know. We should make life easier for them by having two prominent templates for two different merge directions: {{Merging from}} and {{Merging to}}. (And unclear templates like {{Being merged}} can be hidden somewhere in a dark corner.) — Chrisahn (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Hurricane "related" templates

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 delete after substitution. Whether these lists need to be in the infoboxes is an editorial decision outwith this forum, but the consensus is clear that these templates only store text that should be directly included on their respective pages. Primefac (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on to the ones already nominated by User:Jonesey95 and User:WikiCleanerMan: None of these are necessary. They don't provide any functionality that could not otherwise be implemented easily, since many of them are just plain text--no styling or anything else. Most also have very few or no transclusions, nor documentations. element 15:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. These are necessary for high-impact storms that have multiple sub-articles written about or related to them with multiple impacts across many regions (such as Sandy, Irma, etc). Most users don’t have to scroll all the way down just to find the specific section. Many of these remained for several years so I do not see why it is all of a sudden an issue now. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as well. A majority of these very notable tropical cyclones do have extensive articles (mostly impact-related/effects-related and meteorological history-related but also including tornado outbreaks and other related responses, incidents and events) that necessitate the use of this template. They are there for a reason: to help the reader easily see and read the essential information regarding the history and effects of the TC in question. And in these cases, there are just too many relevant paragraphs that are too long to be put in a single article, hence the use of the TC related template. Note that I did support the deletion of the Typhoon Mangkhut related template but that is because its meteorological history and impacts are short enough to be put in the main article. However, that situation is not applicable to most, if not all of the templates listed here. Vida0007 (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These "see also" links do not belong in infoboxes and they should be moved to bottom navigation templates. Template:Hurricane Sandy related for example has already Template:Hurricane Sandy series. Gonnym (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. All of these links can be easily linked from the main article and vice versa. Very inappropriate way of navigation just to include in a infobox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Useful "see also"-style links in infobox, which contrary to the statement from Gonnym, actually do belong in the infobox. Numerous other non-weather articles do similar processes, including ones like Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has three separate "see also"/"related" infoboxes for the large number of child articles. To go further, 2024 United States presidential election contains the Template:US 2024 presidential elections series directly under the infobox, which also provides dozens of child-article links/see also links. This is a common practice on Wikipedia, and I see no reason why weather articles should be the exception to this common practice. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are mistaken about the template you cite. That sidebar is below and that is true. These templates are not following the proper template format for navigation. These templates are added within the infobox. See the template structure below from Hurricane Isabel article in the related section. Plus, these templates are just linking articles in bullet points. These do not follow proper navigational structure for templates.
    {{Infobox weather event
    | image = Isabel 2003-09-11 1720Z.jpg
    | caption = Isabel at peak intensity, northeast of the Leeward Islands, on September 11
    | alt = Satellite image of Hurricane Isabel at peak intensity, while maintaining a clear eye.
    | formed = September 6, 2003
    | extratropical = September 19, 2003
    | dissipated = September 20, 2003
    }}{{Infobox weather event/NWS
    | winds = 145
    | pressure = 915
    }}{{Infobox weather event/Effects
    | year = 2003
    | fatalities = 52 (17 direct, 35 indirect)
    | damage = 3600000000
    | areas = Lesser Antilles, Greater Antilles, Lucayan Archipelago, Eastern United States, Atlantic Canada
    | refs =
    }}{{Infobox weather event/Footer
    | season = 2003 Atlantic hurricane season
    | related = {{Hurricane Isabel related}}
    }}
    }} WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all clear violations of WP:TG: Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content.- this is exactly what is being done here. Just because people have done it on loads of other templates, that doesn't make it correct to do. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could these template at least be converted into navboxes? (e.g. Template:Hurricane Sandy series) Columbia719 (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are more than four links. Most only have at least two. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why not three or four links? Columbia719 (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – per above FaviFake (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why not convert the ones with many subpages to that of Template:Katrina? It would be a much cleaner then the current format and would be outside the infobox anyway. High-profile storms such as Sandy, Harvey, Irma, Maria, Dorian, Ida, Ian, Helene and Milton definitely deserve them as they had widespread and long-lasting impacts too. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my vote above. Lack of enough links. Most have two or three. The Katrina template is a sidebar and if there are less than five links on a subject outside the subject's article, they are brought tot Tfd and it is not enough for navigation and same applies to navboxes. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Functionality needs to be kept, templates don't, whether a series for each hurricane is made or it is simply converted into plaintext, the functionality should stay. However, these templates do not necessarily need to exist. I would like to note that converting to plaintext may not be preferably as each template can be used in several infoboxes depending on how many articles the hurricanes have. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the functionality of most of these templates should be kept. They can be mentioned in the lead section unless there's too many articles. Columbia719 (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion The effects pages can very easily be moved to the impact section of storms. RedAmi! (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:ONGC FC squad

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 delete. (non-admin closure) QalasQalas (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct club, so doesn't have a current squad. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox cricket ground

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. WP:SNOW, per below. (non-admin closure) —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 16:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox cricket ground with Template:Infobox venue.
It seems like this could benefit from being merged. Could also see it functioning better as a wrapper. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There would seem to be quite a lot of parameters in the cricket ground template which are not in the venue one – county club, ends, all the international data and things like that. I'm sure that those could be consolidated into more general parameters, but it seems a lot of work for not an awful lot of benefit and the venue one would introduce a lot of parameters which would never really be used if you were talking about a cricket ground (field shape or acreage, for example). A wrapper would probably be more sensible as an approach, but I don't know how much more efficient that would be anyway Blue Square Thing (talk) 04:37, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worth adding that there was a deletion discussion in 2023 which rejected this – here Blue Square Thing (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn’t know there was a previous discussion. Thanks for pointing that out! I don’t think the amount of work required should be a reason not to do it… I’m happy to undertake the work. The main reason I bring it up is that there are a LOT of params in {{Infobox venue}} that are not in cricket ground but that would be very useful hence the suggestion of making it a wrapper. —Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:00, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdm.Bla and Joseph2302: just a comment. What would you think about making the template into a wrapper? This would maintain all current params/functionality but would also allow additional params to work? Thoughts? —Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely clear on how wrappers work, but if it lets us use the cricket-specific parameters as well as all the venue infobox parameters (which I think is what Zackmann08 is saying), then that seems like a good idea to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that I am understanding wrappers correctly, if the cricket infobox is converted to a wrapper for the venue infobox, Any field from {{Infobox venue}} can work so long as it is added to this template first. I could support this change as long as this means the venue infobox is kept free of the cricket-specific parameters, as per my original comment my main concern with this proposed merge is adding those parameters to over 19000 articles that have no use for them. mdm.bla 03:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{Infobox cricket ground}} {{Infobox venue}}
|location= |address= or |location=
|country=
|coordinates= |coordinates=
|home_club= |tenants=, |owner=, or |operator=
|county_club=
|establishment= |opened=
|demolished= |demolished=
|seating_capacity= |capacity=
|architect= |architect=
|contractor= |contractor=
|operator= |operator=
|tenants= |tenants=
|last_used= |closed=
|endx= |tenants=
|clubx=
|yearx=
The only unique feature of {{Infobox cricket ground}} is the "International information" section – the inclusion of which to begin with I contest, per my comments above. — AFC Vixen 🦊 02:23, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AFC Vixen: The end parameters have nothing to do with tenants – they're the names of the ends of the cricket ground. These are a Big Deal in cricket grounds and would be the parameters I would least want to lose. There are some pretty serious issues with things like size in relation to cricket grounds as well that we'd need to chat about. It's probably fairly easy to come up with a way of dealing with this, but the exemplar for the venues template – the Indian cricket ground – does this really, really badly in my view. A wrapper I could live with; merging is a bad idea and I'll emphasis here that I would strongly oppose merging as of this point Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The internationals information is aruably the most important information, as it's the most key and notable events held there. Infoboxes are for displayed key and pertinent information, and I am personally certain that this information satisfies this. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that is bothersome why exactly? -The Gnome (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is sufficient specific information included in the infobox about cricket that it would be detrimental should it be merged with the generic infobox. Furthermore, cricket grounds can often have types of information that are considered key which are not for other sports as mentioned above. --ProGamerSrijan (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.