Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 19

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< February 18 February 20 >

February 19

edit

Template:Infobox Australian road

edit
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 2020 March 7. (non-admin closure) —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:06, 7 March 2020 (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:Infobox tractor

edit
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. Primefac (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox tractor with Template:Infobox automobile.

The tractor template has just 49 transclusions and is redundant to {{Infobox automobile}} (which covers buses and trucks also). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually 46 transclusions in articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed, but then again, I am not a tractor editor so maybe I should only get half a vote.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - after having read the discussion as it stands, including the Caterpillar D9 example. Thanks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion on the subject, but automobile infoboxes now don't work (basically they don't show up) in content translation tool, due to being considered for merging. Spesini (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really redundant or are you just claiming that? What has happened since the last TfD to make it redundant and can you please show some examples, like Caterpillar D9? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's really redundant. Nothing has happened since the last TfD to make it redundant, since it was already redundant before that. This is proposal to merge two templates. Of course the merger cannot be demonstrated, until they are merged. As noted in the conclusion of the prior TfD, "A resolution is contingent on the will of participants to contribute constructively.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not redundant. There! Without proof, which one of us is correct? Both the previous TfD and the TfM closed as no consensus and there was no actual evidence provided that the infobox was redundant. In order to convince people of your claim you need to provide some evidence, which is why I've asked for the Caterpillar D9 example at all three discussions. That the request has been ignored for nearly 7 years convinces me that the infobox is not redundant. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As any fool can see, your request has not been ignored; it has been answered, thus: "This is proposal to merge two templates. Of course the merger cannot be demonstrated, until they are merged." And to reiterate: "A resolution is contingent on the will of participants to contribute constructively.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A fool might see that but an intelligent person would not. You've previously nominated this template for deletion twice, claiming that it is redundant to infobox automobile. Something cannot be redundant to something else unless the something else has the same functionality as the something. If you were to be believed then infobox automobile should be able to be immediately substituted for infobox tractor without need for a merge. Claiming that the template is redundant is, at best, disingenuous. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat opposed While it is certainly true that the parameters related to dimensions, vehicle type, and model chronology have a degree of overlap, there are a number of other parameters in the tractor infobox that are fairly specific to tractors (blade capacity, flywheel power, and drawbar pull; the automobile infobox does not use speed as a parameter). Another way of viewing it...one group of vehicles is primarily for on-road use, the other for off-road use (motorcycles receiving their own infobox as well). --SteveCof00 (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could some blank parameters be added to Infobox automobile that would allow Infobox tractor become a wrapper template (for that matter Infobox motorcycle as well)? I could see how a speed parameter is useful for tractors, but not so much for cars. –Fredddie™ 20:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: A tractor is a special purpose vehicle, its not intended to transport people from point A to point B and hence its infobox should not have any links to automobiles that are used for transportation.U1 quattro TALK 07:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This proposal would not add "links to automobiles" to articles about tractors. In any case, tractors can be and frequently are used for transport "from point A to point B". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it would. Also, I have ignored the third world countries in which tractors are used for transporting people for short distances against the purpose for which they are made. You aren't making any valid point for merging this and are insulting the opposers. Its not going to work.U1 quattro TALK 05:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • You thinking it does not make it so, especially absent of any evidence to support your claim; just as you imagining insults does not make them real. My comment on tractors being used for transportation is unrelated to what you perjoratively call "third" world countries. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • In what first world countries are tractors used for transportation in lieu of automobiles? I personally don't know anyone who has called for an Uber and had a Massey Ferguson turn up. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't know. Who was talking about "tractors used for transportation in lieu of automobiles"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • You know exactly what I meant. Don't try to avoid the point. You claimed tractors can be and frequently are used for transport "from point A to point B" which doesn't represent the vast majority of uses. Tractors are meant as an industrial appliance, not as a method of transportation. An automobile can tow around bales of hay but that doesn't mean it's a tractor. That some farmer might decide to carry another person on his single-seat tractor doesn't mean it's a car. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • Nobody claimed that the use of tractors for transport "from point A to point B" was "the vast majority" of their use, the claim was that "its not intended to transport people from point A to point B "; a claim which is bunkum, because tractors can be and frequently are used for transport from point A to point B, both for people and for goods, which is irrefutable. Furthermore, the use of tractors for transport "from point A to point B" has nothing to do with "some farmer deciding to carry another person on his single-seat tractor". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pigsonthewing not only your arguments are laughable but you are also wasting everyone's time in this stupid discussion. If you cared about reading what the tractor was invented for, you wouldn't be making foolish statements like tractors can be and frequently are used for transport "from point A to point B".U1 quattro TALK 11:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think "everyone" appointed you their spokesperson, but it is clear that not everyone here believes their time is being wasted. The fact has been demonstrated that a significant proportion of infoboxes on tractor articles - including those about tractors used exclusively for transport "from point A to point B" - already use {{Infobox automobile}}. No cogent argument why a separate infobox is needed has been offered. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your claim that "its not intended to transport people from point A to point B " is bunkum is bunkum itself. Most tractors have a single seat while some have 2. They are designed as industrial implement, used in excavation, plowing, etc and are definitely not designed as a method of transport. Have you ever actually seen a tractor used? I'm assuming no. That some tractor articles use infobox automobile is not an argument to replace infobox tractor. Some articles I checked are missing content that is in other tractor articles because infobox automobile doesn't have the required fields and how is that Caterpillar D9 example going? As for whether or not U1Quattro is spokesperson, I don't see any issues with his comments. They seem quite reasonable and not at all like some other arguments. What next? Tractors can transport large numbers of people across oceans? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have you ever actually seen a tractor infobox used? In this very discussion I have shown that the template is used for, among other things, artillery tractors, which are designed to transport munitions and people "from point A to point B". While your ocean rhetoric is fatuous, there are indeed tractors that transport people across seawater "from point A to point B" and that is what they are designed to do. And yes I, have seen them used to do so. Still no cogent argument why a separate infobox is needed has been offered. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • In this very discussion I have shown that the template is used for, among other things, artillery tractors, - The gem of an artillery tractor that you mentioned uses infobox tractor and, as a tractor that is correct. That it may transport people in war zones does not make it an automobile and while artillery tractors may be something you might see in war zones during WW2 and as late as the Vietnam conflict, they are certainly not common and not a typical tractor. Again, I don't know anyone who has called for an Uber and had a tractor turn up. You're really stretching with this one. Show me how a Caterpillar D9 is designed for transporting people from point "A" to point "B". For that matter, what about a Massey-Harris Model 81, John Deere 9630, Talus MB-H amphibious tractor, RS01 or a FNSS Kunduz? You really should understand that just because something has some functionality doesn't make it into something it is not. For example, the M520 Goer is a fully amphibious truck. That it can travel in water does not make it into a boat. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • You may indeed not know anyone who has called for an Uber and had a tractor turn up. But, again, no-one - not one single person - has suggested that that has happened; it is merely another of a long line of increasingly ridiculous straw men that you are attempting to slay, without any regard for what is actually being discussed. Similarly, no one has suggested that the Caterpillar D9 is designed for transporting people; that's also one of your straw men. Likewise, no one has suggested that an amphibious tractor is a boat; another of your a straw men. You are, though, unable to refute the clear evidence that some tractors are designed and used specifically for transporting people and materiel "from point A to point B". You are equally unable to refute the clear evidence that some tractors are designed and used specifically for transporting people "from point A to point B" across seawater. You are unable to refute the clear evidence that some tractors designed for agricultural purposes are also used to transport people, goods, or materiel "from point A to point B". And still no cogent argument why a separate infobox for tractors is needed has been offered. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • without any regard for what is actually being discussed. - LOL. I can say that about you. You are continually ignoring what is said, not just by me, but by other editors as well and throwing out ridiculous examples.
no one has suggested that the Caterpillar D9 is designed for transporting people; that's also one of your straw men. - This is an example of the above. Your argument is essentially that because some obscure tractors have been designed to carry people then using infobox automobile is appropriate but that's not the case. I threw in the D9 to remind you that I've been asking for you to provide an example of the D9 infobox using infobox automobile for several TfD/TfM discussions and you consistently fail to do so, ignoring the request in the hope that it will go away. It won't.
Likewise, no one has suggested that an amphibious tractor is a boat - *sigh* You really should try reading the whole post and not just what you want to read. What I actually said was just because something has some functionality doesn't make it into something it is not. For example, the M520 Goer is a fully amphibious truck. That it can travel in water does not make it into a boat. Just because a tractor can transport people doesn't turn it into an automobile. It's still a tractor.
You are, though, unable to refute the clear evidence that some tractors are designed and used specifically for transporting people and materiel "from point A to point B". - This is completely irrelevant to the discussion because it has nothing to do with whether or not a tractor should use infobox automobile.
You are equally unable to refute the clear evidence that some tractors are designed and used specifically for transporting people "from point A to point B" across seawater. - Again, this is completely irrelevant to the discussion. In any case, you haven't actually identified a specific tractor to which this applies.
And still no cogent argument why a separate infobox for tractors is needed has been offered. - Several editors have argued why infobox tractor should be used for tractors and while you may not like that, it doesn't mean the arguments aren't cogent. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside your further straw men:

"Your argument is essentially that because some obscure tractors have been designed to carry people then using infobox automobile is appropriate" It is not; do not attempt to speak for me.

"ignoring the request " the only ignoring is being done by you; you have already been told, more than once: your request has not been ignored; it has been answered, thus: This is proposal to merge two templates. Of course the merger cannot be demonstrated, until they are merged. as anyone reading this page can see.

My "from point A to point B" comment is far from "completely irrelevant to the discussion", because it refutes a false claim that the automobile infobox cannot be used for tractors because, supposedly, "A tractor [is] not intended to transport people from point A to point B and hence its infobox should not have any links to automobiles that are used for transportation". I'd be very happy never to mention it again, but so long as you keep raising false claims related to it, I shall continue to refute them, and to show that your objections, while voluminous, are based on foundations of sand.

I was not aware of the need to identify a specific type of - the extremely relevant - sea tractor. Of course, should you now wish to argue that some types of tractor are "completely irrelevant" when considering the use of infobox tractor, then that narrower scope would indicate another reason why the template is not needed Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - per my comments at the previous TfD and TfM, I do not see any evidence that this infobox is redundant to infobox automobile and my own unsuccessful attempts to convert articles reinforces that belief. This is aside from my agreement with other opposers who have made some quite valid statements, such as highlighting the significant differences between tractors (industrial equipment) and common automobiles. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The automobile template is already getting more complicated due to inclusion of EV information, and would just make it more cumbersome. I don't see a good reason to merge, indeed it reminds me that the automobile one is inadequate when it also seems to cover HGVs and buses. One could argue that the Infobox monster truck has more in common.Warren (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guarded support - There are only 49 transclusions in part because there are a lot of tractor models without articles, and some tractor articles already use infobox automobile, such as Case STX Steiger - is it almost empty because the author was lazy or because it doesn't work? I think that the layout of the infobox automobile example looks nice divided into sections, but this could be done to the infobox tractor without merging, too. A quick comparison of the documentation pages suggests that the fields needing to be added to automobile are: |gross_power=, |flywheel_power=, (both aspects of drivetrain that seem reasonable to be available for cars too) |drawbar_pull= (which is like towing capacity for a car, but seems to presently be missing), |speed= (likely to lead to edit wars and uncited claims for performance road cars, recently rejected on talk page), |blade_capacity= (quite specific even for tractors in general). The |type= might also need to be better described to cover what it means for automobiles and also for tractors. The talk page archives are full of suggestions for other infobox parameters that have been rejected (eg approach/departure angles for SUVs, passenger capacity) - I doubt the people there will want to add blade_capacity. Looking the other way, it would be good to see examples of fully-populated automobile infoboxes that show the propulsion/layout options for the three pictures on John Deere 9630 (single wheels, double wheels, mini-tracks), example layout for the various kinds of steering and drivetrain that come from Case STX Steiger down to Farmall M (noting that the steering is different in the two photos). It looks like the main issue is that tractor fans are not infobox-savvy. --Scott Davis Talk 12:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it worth highlighting this: some tractor articles already use infobox automobile. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, what are these articles and why do they use infobox automobile? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I haven't tried to make a proper search for articles in (subclasses of) category:tractors that transclude {{Infobox automobile}}. I had seen it when I was looking for an example for /tractor infobox examples. One I've found again is Allis-Chalmers Model B. It looks like it had infobox tractor from 2009 until 2014. --Scott Davis Talk 21:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • It appears from an "insource" search that more than one in four tractor articles (17:46) with an infobox are already using the automobile infobox (excluding any that are using a third type). Also, some of the transclusions of the tractor infobox are on articles about bulldozers or artillery tractors (including this gem), whereas more articles of those types also use the automobile infobox (or Infobox weapon). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, we know that at least one of the articles uses the wrong infobox because you changed it, which was inappropriate. How many others did you change? Regardless, this means that there are at least 63 articles that should be using infobox tractor, not just the 46 that currently do. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Which article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Allis-Chalmers Model B - You sneakily replaced infobox tractor with infobox automobile using the summary "c/e".[1] "Replaced infobox" would have been far more accurate and appropriate. While I'm at it, your "insource" search identified a number of automobiles that use infobox automobile in amongst the tractors, like Cab over, Fordson E83W and MAZ-535, which is an artillery tractor but not actually a tractor. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • I know what my search identified; I did not count those false positives in the statistics I gave - you are welcome to check. Given that you wrote above "The gem of an artillery tractor that you mentioned uses infobox tractor and, as a tractor that is correct", I think I'll leave "an artillery tractor but not actually a tractor" to stand without any further comment. The Allis-Chalmers Model B infobox was changed in December 2014, during a previous TfD, when I was being challenged to demonstrate that such a replacement was possible (that the infobox change has never been reverted in over five years shows that - far from being "wrong" - the automobile box is fit for use on articles about tractors). That change came from an editor called [checks notes] AussieLegend. My change was so "sneaky" that I gave it as an example in that TfD, in response to - guess who? That's the TfD that was closed with the comment, as pointed out here already, "A resolution is contingent on the will of participants to contribute constructively." Instead of following that advice, you have now descended beyond the mere tediousness of your repeated straw men, and have now ceased to exhibit any assumption of good faith whatsoever. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The tractor infobox includes specialized parameters for tractors (and vice versa), and adding them to the automobile infobox would only make the merged template more confusing and far more prone to erroneous use of non-pertinent parameters. I don't see how Wikipedia is improved in the slightest by having one template which is more difficult to use as opposed to two templates optimized for their purposes. --Sable232 (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (and now full support) I picked an article using the tractor infobox and produced four versions: The original as it appears in the article (some fields are blank), the same infobox with as many fields as I could filled in, infobox automobile with just the same fields (one needed a spelling change), and infobox automobile with as many fields as possible. The result is in /tractor infobox examples. Some notes on missing fields etc are at the end. U1Quattro is right that some of the field labels are linked to articles that don't really make sense for tractors. --Scott Davis Talk 12:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all oppose reasons above. Hansen SebastianTalk 04:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the examples given by Scott Davis on the subpage. A number of the parameters actively don't make sense for tractors (specifically, the body and chassis section, especially the links), but they look like they might make sense, so editors might reasonably think they should include them when they shouldn't. I assume that the flywheel component isn't currently in the automobile infobox, since it's excluded from the fully-filled-out example, and since it doesn't make sense for automobiles, I suspect that it would cause confusion for people who are accustomed to editing non-tractor vehicle articles. Nyttend (talk) 18:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per U1Quattro and AussieLegend - Also the automobile template already includes cars, buses and trucks and IMHO is complicatded enough without adding this on to it. –Davey2010Talk 21:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not seeing a compelling reason to merge. I can tell you that there's an awful lot more than just 49 tractor models an merging the two templates is counterintuitive. Yes, trucks are similar to cars, so that makes sense - if I'm writing a tractor article, the last infobox I'm going to think of is an automobile infobox.
    5225C (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per U1Quattro and AussieLegend. Eddaido (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose too different fields, tractor is not auto -->Typ932 T·C 18:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Caterpillar D9
 
Overview
TypeHeavy bulldozer
ManufacturerCaterpillar
Powertrain
Engine
  • CAT C18 ACERT (D9T)
  • 3408 HEUI (D9R)
PropulsionCaterpillar tracks
Dimensions
Length26.5 ft (8.1 m)
Width14.7 ft (4.5 m) (blade)
Height13 ft (4.0 m)
Curb weight108,000 lb (48,988 kg)

To satisfy the complaints, I've copied the D9 example from {{Infobox tractor}} and converted it directly to infobox autmobile. As noted in several places in this discussion, a template merge would need to add the fields presently missing from {{infobox automobile}}, which include |drawbar_pull=, |blade_capacity=, |speed=, |flywheel_power= and |gross_power=. I renamed |engine_model= to |engine=. See also /tractor infobox examples. --Scott Davis Talk 06:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even more strongly oppose now When going through the List of infoboxes (there are well over 100 for people alone), having a separate one for tractors is NOT that obscure after all. What we don't need is a "one infobox fits all" situation. --SteveCof00 (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's your second !vote, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Template talk:Infobox tractor#Potential improvements for what can be learned from this exercise to improve {{Infobox tractor}} if the merge does not go ahead. --Scott Davis Talk 21:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of the improvements listed there would or could be gained by merging the templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As it could if you merged the template with {{Infobox television}} or many other templates. However, a tractor is neither a television program or an automobile. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pigsonthewing you bicker about users not showing how keeping the two infoboxes separate would be beneficial yet you haven't demonstrated how merging the two would be beneficial. Other than your laughable comment about tractors being used to transport people which has since been proven false, I haven't seen any reason why the infoboxes should be merged.U1 quattro TALK 03:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"which has since been proven false" On the contrary; it has been proven - on this very page - true, Please don't resort to posting lies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where was it proven true Pigsonthewing? You made a fool out f yourself by going statements like "tractors are commonly used as a means of transportation" when deep down you know that they aren't. You're the one posting hilarious lies here. I'm still waiting for you to list any advantage of this merge you have proposed which you haven't done as of late. Making comments like "All of the improvements listed there would or could be gained by merging the templates" is not going to cut it.U1 quattro TALK 04:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are now reduced to posting lies and abuse, then it's clear that your arguments have failed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no lies in what I have posted. These are your statements you made about tractors. I merely copied and pasted them here. Since you're the one defying them, one can easily decide who's lying.U1 quattro TALK 13:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The fact that Template:Infobox automobile is used for articles about tractors is clear evidence that there is, in fact, no fundamental distinction between the two infoboxes. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose tractors are specialized vehicles, and are much better served by a dedicated infobox. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've already stated I oppose this change, but it seems absurd to me that just because something is underused means it is redundant. The core issue here is not that the tractor infobox is redundant but that it is underused.
    5225C (talk) 08:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The core issue is that the tractor infobox is redundant; however it is also underused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are 15 articles using Infobox tractor that are not presently in any kind of tractor category. Is this a misuse of hte infobox, a failure of the categorisation, or something else? --Scott Davis Talk 21:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • But why is it redundant?
        5225C (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd argue that the Talus Atlantic 85 DO-DO launch carriage is not a tractor, it's a boat trailer, so it shouldn't be in a tractor category. As for redundancy, it is not redundant. You can't do a 1 for 1 replacement of the two infoboxes because infobox automobile is missing some required fields. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Exactly. Not to mention that I would not want infobox automobile to have the same functionality as infobox tractor because they are used for fundamentally different vehicles. As you stated at the start of this (absurd) nomination, "If [infobox tractor were redundant,] then infobox automobile should be able to be immediately substituted for infobox tractor without need for a merge." which is very clearly not possible. These templates are not redundant.
            In addition, the idea that they could fulfill the same purpose and therefore the lesser-used is redundant is absolutely ridiculous. You can make any two given infoboxes fulfill the same purpose simply by adding more fields. That does not mean you should do it.
            5225C (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not a tractor, but that's immaterial, since we do not categorise articles by the infoboxes they use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can this request now be closed? There is no consensus to merge and there have been no replies in 4 days.
    5225C (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do not determine consensus by counting votes. While some people loudly object, the fact remains that one in four tractor articles with an infobox are already using the automobile infobox and no cogent argument why a separate infobox is needed has been offered. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • We do not determine consensus by counting votes. - Nobody said we do.
      the fact remains that one in four tractor articles with an infobox are already using the automobile infobox - Even if that were true, it's not really releavant. How much information is missing from those articles that wouldn't be missing if infobox tractor was used?
      no cogent argument why a separate infobox is needed has been offered. - I'd dispute that and I think you'll find that the majority would argue that no cogent argument has been offered as to why continuing to use Infobox tractor is not desirable or will hurt the project. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not a single person suggested we determine consensus by votes. I requested that a conclusion be drawn given inactivity. Make of that what you will.
        I am yet to see any compelling reason for merging the infoboxes, and given the lack of consensus it does not seem reasonable to drag out this discussion any further.
        5225C (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Infobox tractor has about five fields that would need to be added to the ones already in infobox automobile if they were merged. There are also three (I think) that would need to be renamed, and one (|weight=) that is defined as kerb weight in infobox automobile, and doesn't define what is included or excluded in the description of infobox tractor. If I had not been involved in this conversation, I would close it as "no consensus". --Scott Davis Talk 13:52, 17 March 2020 (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).

IRB Nations Cup squad navboxes

edit
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 delete. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need squad navboxes for a minor international tournament, especially when one of the teams involved isn't even a national team (South African Kings), and two of the other teams in the tournament (which don't have navboxes) aren't their nations' senior national teams. – PeeJay 09:35, 19 February 2020 (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:South China Tigers squad

edit
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 delete. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes are supposed to link between different articles, and this one in particular is supposed to link between the different members of the South China Tigers squad; however, there are no such players according to the navbox itself, which means it serves no useful purpose. – PeeJay 09:27, 19 February 2020 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_19&oldid=946093295"