Andy Mabbett Pigsonthewing ; Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits , 19 February UTC Andy, "cruft in the infobox", "That assumption is false", "Your claim is again bogus" is not cooperative language and not helpful for a discussion nor towards improvement of wikipedia. Also, you are supposed to base your statements at first call.
Just repeating "false" a dozen times does not make that a valid statement. In short, leave the battlefield attitude behind. When one disagrees with another editor's statement, one is quite likely to not make use of "cooperative language". And what are you trying to say with " you are supposed to base your statements at first call? It would help if you attempted to contribute in English, please.
Hyperbole like repeating "false" a dozen times does nothing to calm the interactions and your edit summary, "another try to get this back on track", is a long way from the content of your contribution. Why not address the issue instead of another ad hominem?
- 43 comments.
- Vaitheesvaran Koil - Kuladeivem Gurukkal vaitheeswaran temple,.
- Naadi Astrology Vaitheeswaran Koil Nadi Jeevanaadi Jeevanadi +91 944 398 6041 , 944 060 2795.
If you have nothing useful to add to the question of whether parameters can be changed in unprotected templates without prior discussion of course they can per WP:BEBOLD , then you're not furthering the discussion. Frietjes talk , 18 February UTC The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
This template seems to work like it should. Andy Mabbett Pigsonthewing ; Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits , 30 December UTC Keep There appears to be nothing especially wrong with the newly created template, but I see no reason to systematically delete the existing template either. If the new templates creator wishes to replace all the older templates with his own, then so be it. But I fear the collateral damage that would ensue due to deleting the older template at this time.
To what do you refer? What "collateral damage"? Andy Mabbett Pigsonthewing ; Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits , 2 January UTC Keep , dot-com companies tend to have different structures and mergers and acquisitions tend to be more common in the software world, as well it includes special options for software clients and other important information that regular company infoboxes lack.
How is it not catered for by a merger, or by having the website template as a module of the company one? It works fine as is. WP:Infobox consolidation is an essay, not a Wikipedia policy or guideline , and only represents minority viewpoints see the essay's revision history.
The vast number of infobox deletions and mergers over the last four years, made on that basis, shows widespread community support for its principles; nor does its edit history evidence any dissent. I note that you advance no arguments as to why a separate template is needed. I simply give arguments about why the statis quo should be kept. The closing admin should read my arguments as I stated them originally: "There is not sufficient reasoning to delete or merge this template. In the Western World nearly all respected companies have websites and webclients, etc.
Voting "Keep" just to keep the status quo is disruptive editing, in my mind. I applaud the effort to consolidate templates, which are slippery things to maintain. Jane talk , 3 January UTC Keep I see no reason to encumber future editors of Tesco with irrelevant fields like ipv6 and programming language. I appreciate that the more templates there are, the more maintenance there is, but this has a significant number of its own fields. User:GKFX talk , 3 January UTC This proposal would not "encumber future editors of Tesco with irrelevant fields", whether enacted through the use of a module, or by a full merger, in which case copyable blanks of varying permutations could be provided.
Having addressed that, I see no reason not to delete. I'm not keen on the infobox's name tho but meh it's least of the 'pedias problems.
This is nowhere near being "the most used infobox template on here", much less the most-used template. Andy Mabbett Pigsonthewing ; Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits , 4 January UTC Well lets put it this way - I've never seen an article that's used the "Infobox dot-com company" infobox before and that's despite editing every random article here, But if those are legit numbers than I guess I'm wrong there A frontend would show how redundant the template really is.
As is, I say they are probably redundant, but if a problem is found in the replacement process, I hope it is handled appropriately. I may actually! There are some small problems. If lowercase is not preferable, the documentation should be changed. I have read that these templates are updated by bots such as OKBot, but haven't seen any recent edits of that kind. I'll try to look at it, again, and return with a parameter map and! So far, it does seem to basically be two templates spliced together, which would be better in module form.
I put a wrapper in the sandbox , but it will need some changes. I did not keep the screenshot collapsible, though that is probably desirable. A bot could do this better than a wrapper. I have not yet mapped Country of origin, IPv6 support, computing platform native clients or advertising, but maybe I or someone else will find ways, later.
If there are instances where these are important, the replacement should not be made, there, yet. The module has some options the current template lacks, such as years for data. You can compare on the testcases page. However, this is not a vote, and you offer to argument to the contrary. It was luck, actually—I probably would've just used Template:infobox company if I hadn't stumbled upon this one by accident. Wouldn't it be more intuitive if there were just one template? Users could just follow the instructions for that single template, rather than performing an exhaustive hunt for the most specific applicable template.
Combining related infoboxes leads to usability hassles like Template:Infobox officeholder and Template:Infobox settlement , adding to the barriers to new contributors. I don't see a reason to delete this template. Most editors find it useful when writing articles about online companies or social media sites. The infobox was converted to a wrapper by Plastikspork because it contains 3 parameters that don't exist in Infobox television episode. Pigsonthewing's removal of the episode list the 4th non-standard item now opens the possibility of creating two additional templates for the season lists, which are provided for in Infobox television episode.
Montanabw talk , 30 December UTC How do you suggest that the extra parameters not present in Infobox television episode are handled? Should we just say "screw you" and ignore them? Andy Mabbett Pigsonthewing ; Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits , 31 December UTC I've already looked at the example, which stopped information from the custom fields being displayed.
You've been around long enough now to know that you should check your work before leaving an article, and you should know that you shouldn't make test edits in articles unless it's necessary. In this case it isn't. You could have created a side-by-side comparison on the testcases page, instead of a one-sided change in one article. There's no excuse. I did extensive testing at hundreds of articles before making the code live with no problems.
It was only after it went live that the problem appeared. The resolution was not at all what one would have expected. Nice try though. Montanabw talk , 2 January UTC I suggest you direct your comment to those who call other editors, quite incorrectly, a hypocrite. Montanabw, a response not fitting your idea does not mean it's personal. Also, by bringing out the PA flak so careless it might well be you who should reconsider. Brothers marry sisters? Men marry children?
If the rationale is fundamentally unsound, then the "Delete" amounts to little more than a vote, and consensus is not achieved through voting. Cyphoidbomb talk , 31 December UTC Cyphoidbomb : , with all due respect, there are so many of these discussions, it is not worth a learned treatise for every one. Templates are difficult enough for the non-programmer user like me , and to go hunt down an obscure one is such a total waste of time and effort.
Montanabw talk , 2 January UTC Keep As I've explained above, deletion of this template, which requires no ongoing maintenance, opens the way for the creation of two season list templates in its place. That makes no sense. I agree with the nominator; there is no need for a separate template in this circumstance. In case you are covering a U.
S network, the U. The destination template documentation has been marked as "outdated" and "incomplete" since March Those problems, whatever they are, need to be corrected before this merger is completed. As there are no outstanding issues on the talk page, I've removed them. In any case, documentation is updated when a merge taes place. They're not the same and the uses are different. We don't need both. So my vote's unchanged. Andy Mabbett Pigsonthewing ; Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits , 2 January UTC It depends - maybe the reader never reach the bottom because of all the references and external links.
They can see infoboxes; if there isn't an infobox, they probably see a sidebar, but not a navbox. I am curious why this area needs BOTH a side and a bottom navbox, can't they be combined into the bottom navbox and the side one replaced with an infobox? Andy Mabbett Pigsonthewing ; Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits , 29 December UTC Neutral , but what to do with all those sub-templates of infobox MTR which are used to change style of the infobox according to the station livery color? This should be a system wide thing. We do not need a contrived style definition to do that.
The station livery color is so distinctive and the similar color is rarely shared by 2 adjacent stations. I agree the station styles could be done more legibly, but not in any attempt to eliminate them wholesale. The template has several parameters specific to Manchester Metrolink which are not present in the suggested replacement.
If there is any problem or redundancy with this template, surely it would be better to discuss the matter at its talk page, or on the talk page of one of the relevant WikiProjects, rather than take it to the somewhat antagonistic world of TfD? As for replacing Wikipedia:Templates for discussion , that would require an RfC; but this is not the forum for that.
The latter is plain text - the former is an integer which is used to decide which route map to show, and what heading to put in the yellow strip above that.
- gemini weekly horoscope 17 november 2019.
- Recommended Posts.
- leo october 19 astrology.
- leo 15 october horoscope.
- aquarius love horoscope singles;
- by using date of birth 16 october numerology.
I didn't say that we should replace Wikipedia:Templates for discussion - I had hoped to imply that it would be courteous to invite those who use these templates most frequently to discuss any perceived problems before the matter gets thrown open to comments from the floor. But they enjoy no special privileges. This might mean that a station is moved from one route to another, and all we need to do is alter one number in each of the affected stations' infoboxes. Or it could mean that a route is renamed, and then all we need to do is to alter the infobox and all the stations on that route now show the new name.
The whole point of having a template is so that you don't have to have the same content repeated across the wikitext of many articles. If that is not why we have templates, we might as well substitute it right out to the basic table markup. Maintenance would then be an absolute nightmare. How many changes are involved?
How is it an issue for Manchester, yet not for all the other districts and countries, that don't have unique infoboxes for their light rail systems? Your final argument is a straw man.
Icon a5 south africa
Lots of unnecessary work replacing them for no obvious benefit. G talk , 29 December UTC The benefits are explained in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation , which also addresses the work and who will do it. There really is no case to be made that the Manchester network is somehow different to all those, in the parameters that we record for its individual stations. Christian75 talk , 2 January UTC Keep , if others want to get rid of their own infoboxes that is up to them, as far as I know Wiki policy is made by consensus and the consensus is that this infobox makes maintenance easier than a generic template which requires heavy customization on each page it features contrary to the opinion of a lone drive by editor.
We don't need separate templates for every country in the world, we most certainly don't need them for every city on the planet with a mass transit system, all of them have some unique properties, just like snowflakes Nominator did not even bother to check parameter list. Then claiming "redundant" is wrong with the nominators being familiar with templates, this is incompetent. Montanabw talk , 2 January UTC Noted that you again make no attempt make a case for the retention of this template. I say that the proposal is botched from the start, I have pointed out the errors in your proposal, and you don't even try to fix or address them.
And so this discussion should close as "no consensus", or actually "bad process". Therefore, you can put the infobox in its own page! Andy Mabbett Pigsonthewing ; Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits , 3 January UTC Snowball clause, if a proposal has not a snowballs chance in hell of reaching consensus in favour and its proposal is bureaucratic then it should be dropped, also Notvote doesn't apply, everyone has provided a reason for their decision not simply a numerical vote.
Therefore propose speedy close to deletion discussion under WP:Buro, Wiki is not a bureaucracy, policies decided elsewhere should not be automatically applied to all articles. WatcherZero talk , 4 January UTC This is a discussion about whether to delete a single infobox; not aboutca policy.
The snowball "clause" dos not apply here. Also, you miscounted. After all, Manchester is in Great Britain. This alone would be a massive simplification and with the UK have a quite unique rail network merging all into the "international infobox" really wouldn't work! Mark talk , 7 January UTC The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
The close didn't address the parameters that the nom mentions to be discarded or merged, and the original close "merge as proposed" would also mean leaving out those parameters. However, that's not supported with consensus here.
Those that indicated they wanted to merge didn't indicate whether they wanted those links merged or removed. In the implementing discussion there is clear opposition against it, which means it isn't uncontested either even if it isn't explicitly addressed in this discussion. Leaving out those nav links from the merged template was implied in what was written, but not in what was intended as the original closure of the discussion. To make it explicit, there is no quorum to determine consensus to leave out these nav links from the merged result, and this discussion does not show consensus to change the status quo of including the links.
Andy Mabbett Pigsonthewing ; Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits , 29 December UTC Keep revised vote below - This template was nominated for deletion only last year , with the result being Keep then and nothing has changed. You offer no justification for keeping a separate template, nor for merging with the UK station infobox. It still involves, effectively, deleting this template in lieu of another.
I haven't suggested a merge with Infobox GB station because, as I indicated, that proposal was ignored at the previous discussion.
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/ December 29 - Wikipedia
However, that makes a lot more sense than merging to Infobox station because, as I indicated above, the templates are similar and also are closely related. Did you bother discussing this with the end users or maintainers of Infobox GB station prior to nominating again or after the last discussion?
As for me not offering justification for keeping a separate template, "no need" is hardly justification for a merge. Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation is just an essay that doesn't address specific infoboxes. You really need to provide specific justification, otherwise we could just argue that there's "no need" to delete a stable infobox. It has also decided, over the past few years, to merge, redirect or delete a far greater number of such infoboxes, where their parameters are similar; or can be usefully applied more generally.
These work fine as is. There is no need to create a massive ammount of additional work plus different templates have their own benefits and it's up to each country's Trains Project to make these sorts of decisions it should never be made on a global scale all at once. Categories are used to group articles by nation and such, infoboxes are not for categorization. We could in theory, wind up withover templates, one for every nation in the world with mass transit.
That would be absurd. Many articles do just fine with the basic one, and extra parameters can be added if needed, see, e. If there aren't any, please justify spamming every person viewing a railway station article with an infobox that isn't in either GB or Ireland with a totally unnecessary and fugly message.
If you object, you should start a discussion to see if there is interest in changing the rules. It's a very easy thing to add but he expects others to do it. Because he won't, the TfD banner is unnecessarily spammed across the width of the page instead of neatly over the top of the infobox.
Blofeld , 31 December UTC Keep at least until the proposer has adequately answered the question on what changes are proposed for the widely used Template:Infobox station. There was no need to create a template specific to this article, when a universal template existed that could serve the same purpose. Templates have duplicated functionality. It really doesn't make sense not to merge with that template.
Ireland is not part of the UK. You just know that Northern Ireland is British, and the template covers those stations too. Secondarywaltz talk , 5 January UTC I also know that the "Ireland" in the template name is a reference to the island of Ireland, most of which is not British. As I explained at the last TfD, Infobox Ireland station and Infobox GB station are very similar and could be merged into a new template called Infobox UK station without a great deal of difficulty and without losing anything, which won't happen if the template is merged into the generic Infobox station.
They're very similar templates so this is no real issue. Oct 4, 7. I tried here in Chennai , it was more like permutation and combinations kinda stuff. Though he told us our name and stuff , I couldn't believe even a single work he said. Because he kept asking for each Kattu, your name begins with sa, and for another Kattu he would ask something else. Unlike for my friend where they started reading out names from the Kattu and when it dint match they moved on to another one without asking any other info.
In the 4th Kattu they got her name, her mom's name and fathers name alright. She checked inside Temple. Oct 4, 8. Oct 4, 9. Poosamuthu near Vaidyetheswaran Koil was the only guy in S. India who had the legit leaves copied in the s. Last week I got the chance. Review from a different blog. Looks like he is good. Thanks a ton. Will try my luck. Oct 4, You must log in or sign up to reply here.
Show Ignored Content. Share This Page Tweet. Your name or email address: Do you already have an account?
Related poosamuthu nadi astrology address
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved