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).
Pointless templates which indicate a user's lack of any ability to communicate in the given language.
Even the most proficient linguist has skills in at best a few dozen of the world's hundreds of languages, so fr any given user, the list of zero-ability languages will have hundreds of entries. Therefore marking those languages in which a user has zero skills is as pointless as marking all the towns in which they don not live, or the subjects in which they do not have a university degree.
Sadly, this pointlessness has malign effects. Because of the way the Babel system works, these templates populate eponymous categories: e.g. {{User ckb-0}} populates Category:User ckb-0.
I don't really think editors are going to all of a sudden start adding thousands of userboxes for all the languages they don't speak: from what I've seen, these template are used by people who extensively edit in areas where knowledge of a given language may be presumed, for example the first template is used by the main contributor to the corresponding language article. These are then useful as a sort of disclaimer ("I edit extensively about X, but be warned that I don't speak a word of the language"). Hence keep, unless evidence is given of actual harm. And btw, weren't userboxes meant to be discussed at WP:MFD? – Uanfala (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala: The harm caused by these templates is that they impose a burden on those who maintain categories, without any sign of apparent user benefit. These are all templates for small minority languages, where it is exceptionally unlikely that anyone would presume knowledge of the language.
Only two of these templates are in use at all; both on User:Heval7884, where there are so many other userboxes that nobody is likely to find these ones. They are just decoration. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The last template for example is for the Central Kurdish language and it's used by an editor who edits Kurdistan-related articles and who professes (via another userbox) a Kurdish identity, so it's not really far-fetched to assume they might speak the language. These templates do serve a clear purpose. there appear to be about 340 such userbox templates [1], and some of them like {{User es-0}}or{{User ja-0}} have hundreds of transclusions. As for the categories they generate, I see why they might not be needed: it makes sense to categorise users with possession of specific competences, but probably not so much ones without. If the presence of this categories really is a maintenance burden, then the solution is to suppresss them by tweaking the templates (either the individual ones or the metatemplate they use). – Uanfala (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
wrong venue per above. Frietjes (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2018 (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).
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).
Article on one band member and one album. This navbox provides no additional navigational benefit. WP:NENAN. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails the criteria for a navbox (though I'm forgetting where we codified those). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:45, 5 December 2018 (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).
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).
This template makes updating virus classification much harder than it ought to be. It is confusing to new editors who will not know how to make changes to the taxonomy of viruses, which actually changes quite often. The template is not widely used. It should be manually replaced with Template:Taxobox(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Ruslik_Zero 19:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – this template is part of the family of automated taxobox templates, which, as NessieVL notes, has consensus as the preferred option in a discussion at WikiProject Tree of Life. The proposer makes exactly the wrong point: automated taxoboxes are most useful when taxonomy changes often, because a single change at a taxonomy template automatically changes taxoboxes in articles on all lower-ranked taxa that use the automated taxoboxes. It's thus much easier to keep taxoboxes up to date. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is a separate template needed? All it seems to do is add |virus = true. Automatic taxobox could detect that it was the virus from the heirarchy, the same way it discriminates between animals and plants, so that the header colours, "Virus classification" caption and italics are handled. There is no seperate Animalbox or Plantbox. Is there a reason why it couldn't be merged into the Automatic taxobox (and Speciesbox)? Jts1882 | talk 08:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - IIRC, the main issue is the formatting. All viral taxa are italicised, not just genus and species. Also, there are no binomials and genus names often aren't part of the species names, so display for Sulfolobus islandicus rod-shaped virus 2 in the Rudivirus genus for example would be a mess.--Nessie (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you change the virusbox to automatic taxobox in Rudivirus the only difference is the lack of italicisation of the order and family. The type genus is already italicised, although presumably only the first two terms should be. The automatic taxobox system already recognises that the taxon is a virus (hence the header colour) so the only changeto make them the same would be to italicise all taxa below virus group. At the moment only eight taxa use virusbox, so now might be a good time just to switch to automatic taxobox with the appropriate changes. Jts1882 | talk 16:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my example, the Sulfolobus islandicus rod-shaped virus 2 page would be have the issue, as genus-level taxoboxes do not show binomials (though {{Automatic taxobox}} still does not italicize higher taxa for viruses). And ICTV says the whole viral species name is in italics, even if it includes a host taxa name in it. In any event, one could theoretically combine {{Speciesbox}}, {{Subspeciesbox}}, {{Infraspeciesbox}}, {{Hybridbox}}, {{Ichnobox}}, {{Virusbox}}, and {{Oobox}} into {{Automatic taxobox}}, but I think that would be a big unwieldy mess. Each of these have separate formatting issues, and the consensus was to separate them. Virusbox has only been around since 7 October 2018, and I think many of the folks at WikiProject Viruses were waiting for the dust to settle on the ICTV 2018 updates. --Nessie (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, species are the real problem. Hazara orthonairovirus is another example. {{Automatic taxobox}} and particularly {{Speciesbox}} don't deal with virus species. I would personally prefer to keep the peculiarities of this group isolated, and remove the layers of complexity in the standard automated taxobox system which deal with viruses; otherwise the tail is very much wagging the dog in terms of creating hard-to-maintain code. Incidentally, Virusbox has been around since 2011, but was at one time non-functional. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Virusbox is a necessary complement to Speciesbox/Automatic taxobox. Plantdrew (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Virusbox template may not be "widely used", but is still presently in use by at least eight current virus articles. Unless consensus were to develop that would totally prohibit its use, it should be kept until it can be either re-written to be free of faults or Automatic taxobox can be adapted to display viruses correctly. Loopy30 (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI'm not changing my earlier keep, but actually Virusbox doesn't work correctly at present – I will post more at Template talk:Virusbox. Peter coxhead (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC) I have now updated Virusbox so that it uses the newer Lua code to traverse taxonomy templates. It needs a little more work to fix the automatic italicization of taxobox names and article titles, but it's now firmly part of the automated taxobox system. Peter coxhead (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Only eight virus articles currently use the automatic taxobox system and this template needs to be kept and updated so that more virus articles can use the automatic taxobox system, which ultimately helps keep wikipedia more consistent and up to date. Jts1882 | talk 07:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Biased keep, since I both developed (by request) and restored it (by recent popular request and apparent consensus). Since it looks like the only opposition so far is the nominee, I'd suggest that editor seek out assistance learning how to use the new code. Bob the WikipediaN(talk • contribs) 18:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is used, is useful, is part of a system, is already approved in a consensus discussion by people who are actually going to use it. However, it needs to be checked that the claim "The parameters are generally the same as Template:Automatic taxobox, with some changes for viral taxonomy" is actually true. I found another these (maybe it was species box, I forget) which made a similar claim/instruction, but was actually using the parameters of {{Taxobox}} not {{Automatic taxobox}}. That consequently produced errors in mainspace. I think it mostly has to do with what "status" means (conservation versus classification). That conflict needs to be fixed across all of these so that |status= and derived parameters all mean the same thing, and that the other kind of status has a consistent more specific name across all of them (or all that support it; I don't think conservation status applies to viruses and bacteria and such). But, I did not check the template parameter-by-parameter and there may be other incompatibilities between the template and (more importantly) between a template and the actual documentation that the template's page is pointing to. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:34, 5 December 2018 (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).
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 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).
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).
All singles redirect to the album, so nothing to navigate. --woodensuperman 15:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 05:57, 2 December 2018 (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).
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).
delete per above Hhkohh (talk) 05:57, 2 December 2018 (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).
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).
delete per above Hhkohh (talk) 05:57, 2 December 2018 (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).
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 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).
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 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).
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. With the proviso, that cymru.lass' proposal (which don't seem to have any downside) be executed. And, the nominator is asked to refrain from making unsubstantiated personal attacks. (non-admin closure)∯WBGconverse 11:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note Brandon was given a 1 month block largely in part due to his creation of this very template. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The argument that this template is redundant of Template:Tlx is wrong. BrandonXLF is right that it fills a gap in the template-linking templates. There is a clear good-faith basis for this template to have been created, so I don't understand Zackmann08's claim that BrandonXLF was blocked for creating this template, nor can I find any evidence that the creation of this template was the reason he was blocked. I actually think it's very unfair that it was even mentioned here at all, since it has nothing to do with the merits of this template. All that being said, I do think the template should be deleted. Even though it does fill that hole in the table of template-linking templates, the template is not being used as of now, and I question whether there will be any need. I've personally been skeptical of {{tlx}}, which I understand exists to make it easier to click single-character-named templates, and which I think is a dubious purpose, and which I see used far more often outside the purpose for which it was intended. --Bsherr (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bsherr: all you have to do is read their talk page. They are also on WP:PROBATION and banned from editing templates because of creating disruptive and redundant templates. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So if you're not making an ad hominem attack, you will show me where this template is mentioned in relation to a sanction? --Bsherr (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about we delete this template, and edit {{tlx}} to add a |linkbraces=yes parameter (or something similarly named) to include the linking of the curly braces? That seems to solve most of the arguments here... cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As there are no substantive transclusions of this template, I don't think there's a need for an alternative. --Bsherr (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with |linkbraces=yes parameter in {{tlx}}. Maybe create a {{tlx}} wrapper template at {{tnc}} (or whatever) to fill the gap in the chart. This is not the first time we've been over this (in fact, I filled that gap myself once, only to have it TfDed, many years ago). People are going to continue seeing the gap and continue filling it. We just don't need a pile of redundant, complex code to fill it, just a simple wrapper that passes parameters. PS: I agree that the attempt to personalize this and make it into some kind of bogus disciplinary matter was highly inappropriate. See WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:38, 5 December 2018 (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).
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 to merge all the templates to Template:Infobox planet. Pretty much SMcCandlish, as to weighing the opposition. (non-admin closure)∯WBGconverse 11:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect – {{Infobox planet}} is clearly the superior design here, as it is more streamlined and doesn't require a heap of templates resulting in incredibly messy syntax and difficult problem solving when one or more templates go awry in any way. It should be noted that {{Infobox planet}} is already used on over 3,000 pages, too. I do have concerns over the fact that both the Planetbox series and {{Infobox planet}} share the same bloating problem. There's too much information in {{Infobox planet}} that the average reader with a casual interest in astronomy would ever need to know. The purpose of an infobox is to summarise key facts in an article. A majority of the parameters in {{Infobox planet}} will host information that will likely never appear again in the same article. This information bloating leads to an incredibly lengthy, over-detailed infobox that not only fails to serve as a short, to-the-point summary of key facts but can also break pages by overlapping multiple sections and displacing whatever images, quotes, boxes, templates, ect., are placed in prose. I can support a complete replacement of the Planetbox series, but {{Infobox planet}} is in dire need of some truncation, too. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk·articles·reviews) 00:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilipTerryGraham: you make some good points there. Can I suggest that we focus first on getting consensus to deprecate use of the {{planetbox begin}} series. If and when consensus is reached that that should be done, I agree that it would be beneficial to take an in-depth look at {{Infobox planet}} to see what improvements can be made. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilipTerryGraham: The point of such a template is to cover the details for every article. That means while some details may seem unimportant in one article, they may be highly relevant for another. Culling parameters without careful consideration of the impact is inappropriate. If you want to trim the infobox for one particular article, then address it on that article. Praemonitus (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, {{Infobox planet}} is an already complex, widely used template. Could the nominator please make a proper assessment and tell us in what respect the proposed deletion/merge would be actually beneficial? Rfassbind– talk 00:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rfassbind: I'm not sure I understand what you are saying? Your comment seems to support my point that {{Infobox planet}} should be used instead of the complex series of templates provided by Planetbox. What more of an assessment do you need? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This series of templates is in use for extrasolar planets, while {{Infobox planet}} is used for planets that orbit around the sun where the star doesn't have to be mentioned. It is worrisome to see that most of the criticism is about using a series of templates. These templates are easier to use than a single template with many fields. While there may be a case for merging this series if it does not complicate the planet infobox too much, the astronomy project is comfortable with template series. Only 3 star articles use {{Infobox star}}, while 4501 use the series beginning with {{Starbox begin}}. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know you weren't suggesting that. But as you can see above and below the series as a series was becoming a major argument for the merge. The argument should be whether or not to have separate templates for extrasolar planets and our own planetary family. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@StarryGrandma: I strongly dissagree with your assertion that a single infobox would be harder to edit. It's easier to edit a "a single template with many fields" because the syntax is a lot clearer and a lot easier to understand than an infobox made of multiple templates, where the syntax is a mess of curly brackets and template names with multiple, and often unclear, uses of opening/closing brackets that allow each and every template to function. We'd just want only the one template to worry about, please. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk·articles·reviews) 03:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"{{Infobox planet}} is used for planets that orbit around the sun where the star doesn't have to be mentioned."? Really? The first line of that template's documentation says "This template has been designed for the presentation of information on non-stellar astronomical bodies: planets (including extrasolar planets)...". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on technical and administrative grounds: The {{Infobox planet}} template does not appear to incorporate all of the fields provided by {{Planetbox star}}, {{Planetbox separation}}, or {{Planetbox character}}. Hence they are not identical. Plus the documentation is incomplete so it is unclear what some of the parameters provide. What, for example, is 'mercury_moid'? However, I'm not opposed to revisiting this once the concerns are addressed. Praemonitus (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Praemonitus: that is part of the discussion here. IF a decision was made to merge the two, step 1 would be to make sure that all the parameters were supported. That is what the Holding cell is for. So for clarification, the question here is "Should we deprecate use of the planet box series in favor of {{Infobox planet}}". If I am reading your comment correctly, you are saying that you support this so long as the documentation for {{Infobox planet}} is updated and a few necessary fields are added? Is that a fair statement? Want to make sure I'm not putting words in your mouth. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's more than a few missing parameters, and changing the template could have impacts to the existing pages it supports. I think need to be better convinced before I'll support a transition. Praemonitus (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. My preference would be for a single template, but even merging in the other direction is better than the current situation. [ec] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As it was pointed out, currently {{Infobox planet}} doesn't contain any information about the host star when used for extrasolar planets. I think there is some content in {{Planetbox begin}} that can be trimmed down, but before deprecating it, some improvements on the other one are much needed. Psyluke (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08: Then merging them should be fine. Thanks for the comment. Psyluke (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose without a proper analysis, this would be a careless endeavor. There are different parameters; and even where they are the same, the corresponding label differs; and even where a label is the same, the linkage on that label may differ. {{Infobox planet}} already contains 113 parameters. How many more would have to be added – how many more selectors need to be introduced? If asteroids and exoplanets should share the same template, {{Infobox comet}} sure as hell should join them as well. Good luck. Rfassbind– talk 03:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rfassbind: Good job that we are doing a proper analysis, then. Do you have an example of a parameter where "the label is the same, but linkage on that label differs"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For example, |Discovery site= links to MPC's List of observatory codes in one template; while in the other, it does not. It comes right after the first displayed item in {{Infobox planet}}, "Discovered by", which is basically the same case, as it links to List of minor planet discoverers. You wouldn't need to ask if a proper analysis had been done. Rfassbind– talk 00:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rfassbind: can we try to keep this civil? People come to this discussion from different points of view. The point of the discussion is for everyone to have a chance to raise concerns. You have raised some great concerns but the comment that You wouldn't need to ask if a proper analysis had been done. doesn't help anything and frankly makes your otherwise constructive comments less valued. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This was not meant as a personal attack, but rather as a concise opposition to the believe that this discussion would somehow be suffice to come to an informed conclusion by asking everyone to skip through 200 or so parameters and cast a vote that potentially affects 1,000 articles without having a proper analysis as a basis. I sincerely apologize if I failed in that attempt. Rfassbind– talk 02:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"You wouldn't need to ask if a proper analysis had been done" And you wouldn't have said that if you'd thought about the difference between "done", and the word I used, "doing". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if that last sentence was unfortunate. I suggest to focus on the proposal, not on semantics, to give the discussion at least the appearance, that some kind of superficial analysis has been is being done. Rfassbind– talk 21:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I listed all documented parameters for exoplanets. Parameters marked with a Y may be mapped to a corresponding counterpart in {{Infobox planet}}, even if the label or the linkage on the label still differs. The majority (approx. 50 parameters), however, do not seem to be redundant and would have to be added. This would increase the parameter count in {{Infobox planet}} from 113 to approx. 165. To anyone: please feel free to change Y→NorN→Y, if you think I made a mistake in my assessment. Just put a note on the bottom of the list. Rfassbind– talk 02:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
[reply]
proper analysis: redundancy check of extra solar parameters
N|star=Designation of primary star of extrasolar planet, as used in the EPE
N|planet=Letter of planet (b, c, d, ...), as used in the EPE; default is b
N|simbad=Designation used in SIMBAD, if different from EPE
N|exoarchive=Designation used in the NASA Exoplanet Archive, if different from EPE
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rfassbind: thank you for the super detailed analysis!!! So with that in mind, let me ask you (since you did that analysis and objected before). If all those parameters were merged, I.E. NO information were lost, would you support the merger? To be clear, a "merge" vote here, doesn't me "I support merging it right no with no changes". It really means "I think these two templates can/should be merged into one template". From there it would go to the Holding cell while we merge it. My argument here is that I don't think it makes sense to have 2 different templates. I'm also not a fan of the series of templates and would rather have one unified infobox. That being said, I don't want to remove any information. I'd be more than happy to take the lead in merging all the parameters. Perhaps we could start with a proof of concept? Let me know your thoughts. Thanks again for the in depth analysis. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think all the parent star parameters except |star= should not be included. The infobox is about the planet, not about the star. If you want to know more about the star, click the link and go to its article. No need to duplicate information. That means removing 11 parameters: |RA=, |DEC=, |app_mag=, |dist_ly=, |dist_pc=, |class=, |mass=, |radius=, |temperature=, |metallicity= and |age=. Additionally, |constell= which is part of that specific group, should be kept. The infobox caption header should also be removed, that isn't the place for something like that. The reference section should also be moved out and placed in a normal MoS External links section. That means removing 4 parameters: |star=, |planet=, |simbad= and |exoarchive=. So that is a total of 16 parameters that don't need to be merged. --Gonnym (talk) 11:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gonnym here. --Izno (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: lets see what the final result of this TFD is, but I have a rough idea in my head for how to proceed. Assuming this tfd passes, I'll take the lead in implementing it and would love to lean on you for checking of my work and making sure I don't miss anything. :-) --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, parameter |dist_ly= can't be dropped, as the planet's distance from Earth is given in the first sentence of any extra solar article I checked. Other parent-star parameters will need to be kept or otherwise re-added. The infobox is a summary of the article. If that includes information about the star, then this can't be just ignored for the sake of a less excruciating template merger. Rfassbind– talk 01:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the nom. --Izno (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Planetbox and Infobox Planet. --Schlosser67 (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, obviously. "The target doesn't yet have all the parameters of the source" is something that gets fixed in the process of merging. That's what makes it a merge in the first place, instead of a delete-and-redirect. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:41, 5 December 2018 (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).
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).
Note:|beach_number=, is used by just 17 of the 176 articles using the template; |patrolled_by= by 24. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging. {{Infobox beach}} has parameters that are specialized to beaches, such as |beach_length=, |beach_number=, |hazard_rating=, |patrolled_by=. Putting these into a generic {{Infobox landform}} is begging for editors to fill these with nonsense. The reason why we have specialized geographical infoboxes (e.g., {{Infobox mountain}}, {{Infobox river}}, {{Infobox valley}}) is to only permit sensible parameters. Otherwise we will reconstruct {{Geobox}}, which I think is a mistake. —hike395 (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a slippery slope argument, which is a logical fallacy. No one is proposing to recreate Geobox, or anything like it. Features other than beaches are patrolled and have length (the 'landform' infobox already has |length=), and have reference numbers. |last= and |next= should be discarded, because they refer to sequences in catalogues, not physical relationships. None of the parameters in the 'beach' templates are actually unique to beaches. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my oppose: |beach_number=, |hazard_rating=, |patrolled_by= are all beach-related and do not belong in {{Infobox landform}}. If we convert |beach_number=to|number=, it will be too vague to be useful. —hike395 (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they were not beach related; all the parameters are, I said they are not unique to beaches. Any of them, without the utterly redundant "beach" prefix, can apply to other types of land-form. |beach_number= is itself vague, but can - if kept - be renamed to |reference_number=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support as the original creator of {{Infobox beach}}. {{Infobox landform}} pretty much does what {{Infobox beach}} was designed for, and I honestly believe that the parameters mentioned above by Hike395 can easily be served by either parameters that already exist in {{Infobox landform}} or new parameters based on those currently in {{Infobox beach}}. As a note to Hike395, |beach_number= and |hazard_rating= were remnants from when the template was originally {{Infobox Australian beach}}, and it was used to point to the beach's index and hazard rating under Surf Life Saving Australia. I don't think this parameter is very relevant anymore, and shouldn't be included in {{Infobox landform}} if it is merged with this infobox. We have to keep in mind the purpose of an infobox as a summary key facts of an article, and beach numbers and hazard ratings don't fit that purpose as they will almost always never be mentioned or detailed in the article prose. Also, as a note to Pigsonthewing, |last= and |next= actually are in reference to physical relationships. For example, they are used on North Cronulla Beach to point to the beach south of it, Cronulla Beach, and the beach to the north of it, Elouera Beach. It would be useful if this succession system was kept in some capacity, if not just completely copied and pasted over. Although a more unified system of clockwise direction, rather than arbitrary north-to-south or south-to-north directions, should be noted in the documentation. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk·articles·reviews) 01:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your strong support. However, I note that the documentation for |last= says "previous beach (e.g. according to Surf Life Saving Australia's Beach number system)". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Must be quite an outdated documentation, then. Whoops. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk·articles·reviews) 01:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pigsonthewing (including his rebuttal of attempted refutation). It would actually add useful features to the target template, like reference numbers, patrol information, etc. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:43, 5 December 2018 (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).
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 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).
Y may be mapped to a corresponding counterpart in {{Infobox planet}}, even if the label or the linkage on the label still differs. The majority (approx. 50 parameters), however, do not seem to be redundant and would have to be added. This would increase the parameter count in {{Infobox planet}} from 113 to approx. 165. To anyone: please feel free to change 
Nor