Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 January 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 16 January 18 >

January 17[edit]

Template:Renegade[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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant template – every bluelinked album in this template redirects to the band's article; not one of these albums has its own article, and are unlikely to ever have an article, as none of them charted. Richard3120 (talk) 00:00, 18 January 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).

Template:Alumni of Nobel Laureates from Chinese Universities and Template:Alumni of Nobel Laureates from Taiwan's Universities[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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely tenuous relationship among the listed universities, no similar template exists for other countries except these two. Zanhe (talk) 18:53, 17 January 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).

Template:Languages of Tamil Nadu[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 no consensus. It seems like there is potential for use of this template, but that it is currently ill-defined as to the inclusion criteria and usage. As a note regarding the "swamping of articles with templates", there are other similar "Languages of X" templates (for example) which are in use, so that may influence the discussion. NPASR if in a few months there has been no progress on improving this template; if it remains unused at that point, it can be G6'd per the main reason for nomination listed here. Primefac (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add to relevant articles, clearly useful. – Uanfala (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Have to disagree with the above user. This template would be very difficult to add to articles, most of the languages are not endemic to Tamil Nadu and if we had templates like this for other locations, articles would be swamped with them, making them rather pointless. Ajf773 (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, this resembles "current" templates, which need maintenance, plus some kind of inclusion criteria deciding how many speakers live there to qualify to be listed —PC-XT+ 01:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged BladesGodric 16:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excluding the more widely dispersed languages, there are still about two dozen or so languages "endemic" to Tamil Nadu [1]. True, a large number of these are also "endemic" to neighbouring Kerala but that's mostly because the state boundary runs right through some of the major areas of language diversity. Having separate navboxes for these states is probably not the optimal state of affairs: maybe these can be reorganised on the basis of cultural regions (I don't know enough about the area to tell if this is feasible), or the navboxes of neighbouring states can be merged (a case can certainly be made for doing so with {{Languages spoken in Kerala}}). This template is not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction, it's something that we can build on (or even discard) once we arrive at a vision for organising the navigation in this topic area. But we aren't there yet. – Uanfala (talk) 11:28, 18 January 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).

Template:New York State Historic Sites[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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused; appears to generally duplicate Template:National Register of Historic Places in New York Frietjes (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This should correspond to List of New York State Historic Sites; it just needs to be fixed. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 14:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged BladesGodric 16:43, 17 January 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).

Template:Ayreon guest musicians[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 2018 January 25. Primefac (talk) 14:11, 25 January 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).

Template:NET RDT[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused, the article is using Template:Nottingham Express Transit instead. Frietjes (talk) 13:41, 17 January 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).

Template:NHL color cell[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) Nihlus 00:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused and won't work since Template:NHL color does something completely different Frietjes (talk) 13:40, 17 January 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).

Template:NRHP listing[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) Nihlus 00:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 13:39, 17 January 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).

Template:NRM[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) Nihlus 00:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 13:38, 17 January 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).

Template:NH[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

confusing shortcut due to the multitude of meanings for NH. Frietjes (talk) 13:36, 17 January 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).

Template:ME[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. As there is currently no established "set" of templates relating to linking US states, this seemingly random creation sticks out and (as mentioned) could be considered confusing as far as usage is concerned. There is no prejudice against recreation and/or restoration iff there is consensus to create the entire range of states. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

confusing shortcut due to the multitude of meanings for ME. Frietjes (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose move to keep consistent with other postal-code template naming conventions. I would support a massive move only if templates on all territorial postal codes were created, which they aren't. ToThAc (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • ToThAc, this isn't a move proposal, this is a deletion proposal, see {{AL}}, {{AK}}, {{AZ}}, .... for the others. if you want something that isn't confusing, prefix it with 'US-'. Frietjes (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes: If this is a deletion proposal, then why are you trying to delete each template on a case-by-case basis, rather than all at once? I'd be more likely to support if you mentioned all of the territory-specific US flag templates for deletion at once. ToThAc (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ToThAc, there are only 5 total, and the reasons for deleting each one differ. Frietjes (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 13:30, 17 January 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).

Template:MA[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. As there is currently no established "set" of templates relating to linking US states, this seemingly random creation sticks out and (as mentioned) could be considered confusing as far as usage is concerned. There is no prejudice against recreation and/or restoration iff there is consensus to create the entire range of states. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

confusing shortcut due to the existence of Template:Ma. also, I have no idea why it's being used in 1017 deaths. Frietjes (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 13:30, 17 January 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).

Template:CA[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. As there is currently no established "set" of templates relating to linking US states, this seemingly random creation sticks out and (as mentioned) could be considered confusing as far as usage is concerned. There is no prejudice against recreation and/or restoration iff there is consensus to create the entire range of states. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

confusing shortcut since CA is the abbreviation for Canada (per {{US}}) and {{Ca}} is a redirect to Template:ca icon and {{ca.}} is a redirect to Template:Circa. Frietjes (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 13:30, 17 January 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).

Template:Kitsu[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. Primefac (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template is only used in one article, and does not seem like it will be used in future since Kitsu is not a site that is used widely amongst fans of anime or manga. Alex Tenshi (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom, no need. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kitsu itself does not provide a unique resource beyond what articles would contain if they became featured articles. It is, at its core, a set of discussion forums and among the types of websites that should be avoided. —Farix (t | c) 13:19, 19 January 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).

Template:IPv6 comparison[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) Nihlus 04:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 00:34, 17 January 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).

Template:Education in Macau[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 2018 January 25. Primefac (talk) 14:22, 25 January 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).

Template:Infobox UK school[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 merge to Template:Infobox school. As with some similar debates in the past, this is the merger of two large/complicated templates, but as demonstrated in the nomination there are a relatively small number of different parameters. If ENGVAR switches and backwards-compatibility are adhered to, the arguments for merging these templates outweigh the arguments against. If for technical reasons the merge turns out to not be feasible, then it can be called off, but an explanation of that lack of feasibility will need to be provided. Primefac (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox UK school with Template:Infobox school.
I have nominated for Infobox UK school template to be merged with Infobox school template. The Infobox school template is very comprehensive and better organised than the UK school template. The fields/parameters which I mentioned on Infobox school template talk page (also listed below) should be copied from the UK one, then UK school articles can also use the Infobox school template too, which acts as a 'standard' school template. But as these fields/parameters are the only ones missing, there wouldn't really be any need to have an Infobox UK school template, and the rest of the fields/parameters on the UK template are already there. This is why a merge would make sense. These fields/parameters that I'm relating to are:

  • The LEA to display as Local Authority in the infobox, or an option to have it displayed as this rather than LEA (currently named as this in the Infobox school template), the UK Government website, DfE now calls it Local authority
  • dfeno (previously dcsfno) - "The 7-digit DfE number of a school in England or Wales, available from the DfE EduBase website. A slash should separate the first three digits, identifying the local authority, from the last four, identifying the establishment within the LA."
  • urn (previously dcsfurn) - "The 6-digit DfE Unique Reference Number (URN) of a school in England or Wales, available from the DfE EduBase website and the Ofsted website. The field generates a link to the school's page on EduBase."
  • old_urn - possibly the ability to also add a second or third old urn should a school have been established from a merger of two or more schools - field produces a link to the text of 'Pre-Academy Reports'
  • ofsted - aware this field is already present in the Infobox school template but should be removed, and changed so that "Any non-blank text in this field signifies that the school's teaching is inspected by Ofsted, and causes a link to the current Ofsted reports page for the school to be generated from the value of the urn field."
  • capacity - the schools capacity, in terms of the number of pupils
  • predecessor - this field isn't on the infobox UK school template, but I was thinking this field should be created, as there are schools around the world, including the UK that have been established from a merger of two or more predecessor schools - would be ideal to have this field situated after the other name and former name fields, and before school type field on the Infobox school template
  • trust - "If the school is a sponsor led academy or a foundation school it maybe be part of a trust or foundation." - many schools in the UK have become academies, some have become part of a 'trust'. It would be ideal to have this field situated just after the school type field on the Infobox school template

It would be a good idea to have a look at the Infobox UK schools template example to see what the above fields look like in the infobox and that this can be replicated for the Infobox school template. I can see that 11 infobox school-related templates were merged into Infobox school (I'm aware the majority were American-related). But why does the UK have its own? It is evident that the Infobox school template is better and if you look at them side-by-side, you'll see; its design and fields/parameters are also applicable to UK schools. When adding the Infobox school template to a UK school article, only the parameters applicable to UK schools would be used (already applies to schools in other countries using this template). I had a look at the TfD, the second reason under 'reasons to delete a template' is "The template is redundant to a better-designed template". In this case, the Infobox school template is the better-designed, it just lacks the fields/parameters I mentioned that would allow the template to better-suit UK school articles. I can see that short discussions regarding a merge were previously discussed; one over 10 years ago and another 2 years ago, but I think at these times, the Infobox school template was not as well developed as it is now. In some cases, consolidation (see also Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation) can be a good thing and the majority of the fields/parameters in the Infobox school template are generic to schools around the world. What do you think? :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • No- very worried I have spent considerable time this last month- trying to build up a the structure for a few exemplar article on representative state schools. I am not there yet, but that job concluded I would make some changes to Infobox UK school. I have collected together a useful list of varied types of stateschools that will act as test data for any proposed changes. User:ClemRutter#Making sense of schools
Lets dive in, Kidbrooke school Greenwich, the LCCs first purpose built comprehensive school, was reopened as Corelli College, a cooperative type academy (convertor academy) run by the Corelli College Co-operative Academy Trust. On the 1st March it closes and reopens as The Halley Academy, an academy within the Leigh Academy Trust multi-academy trust, a not-for profit trust. As a Leigh Academy, it will have board of trustees, with a registered address at the Strood Academy, Medway- and a local board of governors. There is an Executive principle, who has an office at Stationers' Crown Woods Academy, and a principal who I believe is not Head of School, but is based at Kidbrooke. All this is infobox stuff, and hopefully can become wikidata maintained. (I haven't bolded 16 or so fields that I would need to store this data)
So far this is fairly simple, the 1200 pupil school teaches NC KS3-KS4-KS5, there are 207 in the sixth form, what could happen next is that the sixthform will be become shared with another school or schools in the MAT- I predict Crown Woods. This allows for the DFE statistics to me massaged and blows our capacity field. Rochester Girls Grammar School, is a girls school- that takes boys into the sixth form. It runs a MAT and imports and exports its sixthformers. There is of course a cost saving as it allows sixth form courses to continue when a key member of staff resigns and goes to teach overseas. Capacity is a moving feast. Now we come back to the questions of site- many (convertor academy) run on multiple sites, these are usually close enough to walk but far enough apart to require two geo-tags. However Tonbridge's Weald of Kent Grammar School has built a £19m "annexe" in Sevenoaks, 10 miles from its main site. If you look at Weald of Kent Grammar School's UK infobox it can't cope.
Now the Nottingham Academy is a 3900 student school across multiple keystages (1-5) on multiple sites with multiple histories and multiple headteachers and multiple associated schools. And we must remember Whitehaven Academy and the Wakefield City Academies Trust fiascos
I dismissed the US specific Schools template as it failed to have the right terminology, and encouraged the sort of 2004 type trivia- mascots, songs! Instead I used the UK infobox which is not very pretty- and now too dated to really function. I suggest/propose that {{Template:Infobox school/UK schools sandbox}} is created and we can work there to see what is possible. My initial thoughts are that do need the facility to embed collapsible subpages within the template. I am thinking of a template with details of the trust or MAT (with link to their current Report and Financial statement- it is a goldmine of a source for wikipedians). I am thinking of see also links to schools in the same MAT. I am thinking of a page for each major site that has been incorporated into the school- this can have an address, a OSM map of the site at max zoom and list of facilities etc.ClemRutter (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, ClemRutter, thanks for your response. First of all, thank you so much for mentioning the multi-academy trusts, I forgot to mention the trust field in the list above (now added) which is important to UK schools. The other problem would be over complicating the infobox - the trust field for example would state the name of the trust the school is part of and would be linked to either a section on the school page where an Academy has established its own MAT (The Fallibroome Academy for example has their own trust known as The Fallibroome Trust) or a page of that MAT/independent MAT (E-ACT for example which also has its own template; Template:E-ACT schools that is displayed at the bottom of its Academies respective articles) with a list of the schools - could even link to a trust/sponsor section on a school page that would provide a description and a link to the dedicated MAT section/page.
The use of a predecessor field mentioned above and the former name(s) field already present in the Infobox school template would help regarding the various name changes of the school, and what is was and what it became after. These names can also be linked to the relevant school articles should those schools have a reputably long history. Also the history section on the present school would be very important in describing these changes. It would be best to keep the infobox simple and it would suffice to mention just the different names and date of establishment next to the name in brackets. You're right regarding multiple sites, and there are schools in the UK (not just Academies), around the world too, that have more than one site. The Infobox school template has a campus/campuses field that can be used to mention these multiple sites (brackets can be used to mention the year-to-year the site was operated if no longer used), it may be a good idea to also have the option to be able to change this so that it displays school site(s)/site(s), as some schools may refer to them as sites rather than campuses. I'm currently working on The Winsford Academy (still much work needed and copyvio) but this school has gone through numerous name changes and sites/buildings, also due to the changes of education in England. First it operated in one building on the High Street (later extended, initially Verdin Technical School), then operated on two campuses/sites (High Street-the building next to this building eventually became part of the school and Grange Lane), Woodford Lodge High School was eventually established on the outskirts of Winsford. The High Street building later closed, all students moved to the Grange Lane site. It then Federated with Woodford Lodge for 2 years before the two schools amalgamated to form an Academy, operating on the two school sites (the Grange Lane buildings known latterly as Verdin High School and Woodford Lodge became 'Town Site' and 'West Site'), before moving all students to one site on Grange Lane (Town Site), and then into a new building on this site. I've mentioned all this in the history section, then provided brief description in the introduction text and a list of the different school names in the infobox (due to lack of sufficient parameters, had to display them next to Established).
Associated schools could be a field that can be made, but may not be needed or this could be mentioned in a section on the school article. If a school has multiple buildings, it may be a good idea to have a 'Buildings' section that would describe each of these buildings. The same can be done if the school has multiple sites. I've seen some school/college articles on Wikipedia that have done this. Regarding sixth forms, could develop a sixth form field that could say boys or girls only or a link to its sixth form section/article. There is a field to describe the number of sixth form students on the Infobox school template. But on UK school articles, we would input the age range, such as 11-16/11-18 in the infobox. Then on the article, we would write an introduction that provides brief information about the school, and we would mention the age range and it has a sixth form etc. It would also be ideal to create a Sixth Form section on the article that would provide a description about the sixth form, and whether its for boys or girls only and so on. Regarding terminology, only the fields/parameters applicable to UK schools would be used. Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Steven (Editor): Thanks for the early morning response. I have had a look again at The Winsford Academy and though it is huge there is a long way to go. There is an awful lot of material that needs to be culled and a lot of essential material missing. I would assess it as a 'C'. Do you want me to come in and do a little editing- or do you prefere to work on your own? Can I reiterate my suggestion that you demonstrate your suggestion by working it up in a sandbox, and then testing it out for the schools I have named- then we can see if it is viable.
I see that the infobox has two functions- a way of rendering basic information so it look goods- but also as a repository of structured data- a halfway house to Wikidata- each field should have very precise contents, open text is really the last resort. At the moment we have to accept redundancy, so the associated schools have to be entered manually-(it would be better if we could import them from a existing navbox template) in future there will be a live link- the MAT named in the |trust field, will pick up the list of schools from a property field in the Wikidata item, and this will also be responsible for naming the Chair of the trustees. ClemRutter (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, ClemRutter, thanks for the response. Definitely more work needed on The Winsford Academy article - I did test the Infobox school template on this article to see how well it works with this UK school (this school has numerous name changes and changes to its education, merged with another school and different sites and buildings), its works very well, I was able to add further information with the other fields/parameters that are available and not to mention that the Infobox school template supports the variations (as mentioned below) and better-designed that the Infobox UK school template. The only thing missing were the fields/parameters mentioned above. Another reason for the merger is consistency across schools on Wikipedia and a template that already acts as a 'standard' school template. Any school around the world can already use this template because of the generic fields/parameters that are available. In order to provide more information that would cater for a school in a specific country, additional fields/parameters that are applicable to those schools would need to be used. If the same approach was to be adopted like the UK, where each country would have its own infobox school template, I think this would eventually cause a mess and it would also mean more infobox school templates to maintain (don't forget the benefits associated with consolidation and consistency - works well with schools, as the generic fields/parameters such as name, established, type etc. would apply to all schools, but you'd just need to add additional fields/parameters in order to cater and provide further information for schools in different countries). You know how you mentioned associated schools and I replied with "associated schools could be a field that can be made, but may not be needed or this could be mentioned in a section on the school article" - I just had a look at the Infobox school template again and there is an affiliations field/parameter and this is for "any of the school's affiliations (or affiliation)". So this can be used to list the associated schools or link to a section within the article or a separate article that contains further information. The other thing is the problem of over complicating the infobox - improvements can always been done, and we can still suggest ideas and work on improvements. But this merge does make sense - Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Because all of the functions of the UK infobox can be incorporated into the general one, but please ensure that all functionality remains as the merge occurs. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Pretty much an ENGVAR issue in some respects, Hate to be all UK V USA but in this case seperate infoboxes are better than one confusing one. –Davey2010Talk 02:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • there is no ENGVAR issue, since the {{infobox school}} supports both variations (enrolment vs enrollment, ...). if there were an ENGVAR problem, we would have {{Infobox Australian school}}, but instead we have documentation showing how to use it for Australian schools. Frietjes (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it were just a problem of spelling you would be right. Here it is a question of structure. I don't believe that the two can be merged while retaining the functionality. I suggested above that a sandbox version of the new template should be worked up, so the template designers can show us how they propose to make this work. I have a list User:ClemRutter#Making sense of schools of schools that could act as test data, for anyone who wishes to try. The both infobox schools template are protected so errors cannot be corrected without a lot of maintenance time. I have detailed above some of the factors that the template designer need to consider. You are correct to say that it is important to make sure no functionality is fundamentally changed or lost. --ClemRutter (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge, but make sure no functionality is fundamentally changed or lost. Frietjes (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge without losing functionality, as I find a separate one just for the UK to be confusing —PC-XT+ 06:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:PC-XT, could you please clarify that? Do you actually use the template and find it confusing to use, or is there something about the way it displays that confuses you, or is it that you are confused by the different terminology between (say) the US and some other countries? If the last, how would that confusion be resolved by merging the templates? Moonraker (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I don't mind clarifying. I haven't used it recently, but I have worked on articles with it before my wikibreak. My opinion is that the UK one is harder to remember, when editing articles for various countries. (parameters, and the name by which to look up documentation, if I remember that UK has this exception instead of trying to use infobox school) The display and terminology are fine. I'm talking about usage by editors. As a coder, I also know of benefits like consolidation to reduce maintenance, but didn't really assess that benefit yet for this code. —PC-XT+ 03:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC) 03:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Moonraker: The confusion is to as why the UK is the only country that has its own school template, when there is an Infobox school template that acts as a 'standard' school template; better-designed and comprehensive. Please see my responses above and response to your comment below as to why the merge makes sense and why I think they should be merged. Steven (Editor) (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge This is a useful template, developed for the circumstances of schools in the British tradition. The "one size fits all" approach is often misguided, as it is here. The merged template would no doubt continue to develop, with the emphasis on functionality in the United States and Canada. And at the end of the day what good purpose exactly would be served? Moonraker (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moonraker: There's a few things to look at as to why the merge makes sense. Obviously the Infobox school template is used for schools around the world and acts as a 'standard' school template. Even though the majority of the templates that were merged into it were American-related, initially the template was most likely used for schools in the United States and Canada. However, there are fields/parameters that are generic and apply to schools around the world, such as name, established, type, the map function and so on. Then to provide further infobox information for a school in a specific country, at present, the Infobox school template has fields/parameters applicable to US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand schools. There's also a few for UK schools, but these need updating as mentioned above and there's a few missing (also listed above). There are many benefits associated with merging the UK one into the standard one, and I don't see how this would be a problem. It is required for schools in other countries using the Infobox school template to use only the fields/parameters applicable to that school. The same is and would be applied to UK schools. If you look above at one of my responses to ClemRutter, you can see that I've tried the Infobox school template with a UK school article I'm working on, which worked very well, I've also talked about another reason for the merger, including consistency across schools on Wikipedia, consolidation and the disadvantages associated if the same approach was to be adopted like the UK, where each country would have its own infobox school template. Ultimately, the merger does make sense Steven (Editor) (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Steven (Editor) I see I was mentioned but not pinged. You don't need to give detailed explanations to every experienced editor, who adds his considered opinion. It is clear that after working on one article you came up with an idea that you believe would add consistency to WP. The article you are working on has Winsford Academy is a rather simple case, and has significant problems- It is not even assessed yet, and there are open maintenance tags even has potential copyvios. Kudpung suggested you should look at HCGS for an example of a GA. You say you have run a test of your proposal- but you have not given us a link so we can see the result. I have asked you to run the test on a I have a list list of schools- can you please do that and give us a link to those results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 10:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Notifying Steven (Editor). Jc86035 (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Notifying Kudpung. Jc86035 (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ClemRutter Hi, sorry for not pinging you, I forgot to tag your name when I was writing the response. I'm just trying to show how the merge would address a problem that an editor mentions. The reason for mentioning the article I'm working on when replying to you above (I've already mentioned above that there is much work to do on it, including copyvio. Kudpung has already addressed this problem on mine and the article talk page - I'm here to discuss regarding the potential merger of the infobox templates, not the article I'm working on) was because it happened to conveniently match some of your problems. There will be schools where only some or one of these factors would apply. Plus, I mentioned that I test the Infobox school template on this article to see how well it works with this UK school. But the thing to look at is making use of the additional fields/parameters that are already available in the Infobox school template. I have already looked at your schools you've mentioned in your talk page, but if you look at all the fields/parameters in the Infobox UK school template, you'll see that they are all already present in the Infobox school template (excluding the ones listed above) - its just a case of using the same fields/parameters that you're using for a UK school, but you'd be able to take benefit of the additional fields/parameters available, a template that's better-designed and again acts as a 'standard' school template and helps with consistency across schools on Wikipedia. Steven (Editor) (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ClemRutter As we are here to discuss a merger proposal and not article improvements, you mentioned improvements to an article I'm working on. I was looking at the "Kidbrooke School + Corelli College + The Halley Academy" you have listed. I see you created a new article for The Halley Academy. For this situation, a separate article won't be needed. It would be best to remove this article and mention on Corelli College in the introduction text that it will become The Halley Academy from 1 March 2018, as part of the Leigh Academies Trust. Once this date has passed, you would then simply move Corelli College to The Halley Academy and update the information on the article, such as the introduction text, history section and infobox. A similar situation happened with the article I'm working on where its name and logo changed slightly due to a change of sponsor/trust (the sponsor/trust name was used in the schools name). Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but only if no functionality is lost. Jc86035 (talk) 05:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merge the parameter image2 has been missed. I would say to hold back from a merge like this if the proposer produces a list of parameters to be copied across that is incomplete. However, I would not be opposed to making UK school use school internally, as a step towards a merger. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bellezzasolo, the reason the field/parameter image2 is not listed because it is already there in the Infobox school template. The Infobox UK school template has image which is for the logo and image2 which is to add a secondary image. In the Infobox school template, there is logo which is for the logo and image which is to add a secondary image. Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bellezzasolo, there's also picture and picture2 on the infobox school template which can be used to add images that would be displayed at the bottom of the infobox. But all the fields/parameters excluding the ones listed above are already there Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Steven (Editor): yes, however that would mean a significant trawl of the existing UK School articles. Certainly, I think the issue needed noting here, as if it had been missed there would have been problems. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bellezzasolo: Yep, unless there is a method for this, my solution would be that if the merge goes ahead and the fields/parameters listed above were copied into the Infobox school template, before deleting the Infobox UK school template, on a gradual basis, all existing UK school articles should have the infoboxes changed - once this is done, then the UK one can be safely deleted. This will prevent from messing up UK school articles and during this process, would be good to have a notification/banner that says this and to use the Infobox school template instead (especially to those who create new UK school articles). I have checked and compared the field/parameters on both templates, but its good you mentioned this parameter as others visiting this discussion will be able to see that there is already a parameter for this. Do you still oppose on the merge? Steven (Editor) (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for several reasons. First, this TfD is developing into the discussion that should have been held Template_talk:Infobox_UK_school with notifications to WP:WPSCH and other interested parties, but wasn't. Secondly, there are some very good reasons for maintaining a separate infobox for UK schools as discussed elsewhere, and finally: it's a solution looking for a problem and all it's doing is causing a huge thread in the wrong venue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: May I ask where these discussions are? WhisperToMe (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At Template talk:Infobox UK school you were taking part in the discussion! We were discussing the provision of pushpin maps which are now available at Template:Infobox UK school/sandbox see The Fallibroome Academy for one in use. It looks nice. ClemRutter (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Section break - comparison[edit]

@ClemRutter: @Moonraker: @Kudpung: @Davey2010: @Fob.schools: Here is a side-by-side comparison of the two infoboxes for The Nottingham Academy (ClemRutter, this is one of your schools listed in your 'current targets for improvement' - the school is officially called 'Nottingham Academy' as stated on website, DfE and Ofsted). As the fields/parameters above are missing in the Infobox school template, I was unable to add these to the example, but you should get the idea of what it would look like if they were there. Note: For the UK one below, I just copied it straight from the school article and added further information. In the Infobox school template, you can see that the LEA and Ofsted fields/parameters need updating so it works/looks the same as the UK one and the DfE URN, Trust and Capacity fields/parameters are missing - all this is mentioned above in the list. For this school in particular, it was established from a merger of three predecessor schools, which is why I mentioned creating this new field/parameter above, as it will apply to schools around the world, not just the UK. For this example, I've displayed this using the former name field/parameter, but this is where the predecessor field should be. The article I'm working on, both former name and predecessor would apply (every school is different!). The reason I have used Greenwood Road as the address is because this is likely to be the main campus of the school and is the address used on DfE and Ofsted. The campuses parameter is used to list the campuses - this would suffice as the article should have information (a section may be good) on the campuses of the school. Should a school have something that would be too much/long for the infobox, such as numerous name changes, a collapsible list can be used (as you can elsewhere!) You can see that the Infobox school template is better-designed and comprehensive; it has an array of fields/parameters that can be used (only used if applicable to the school). Be sure to also look at the actual parameter differences used to provide the information. Oh and I decided not to add the coordinates and map for this example, as because this is a TfD, the coordinates appear at the top right of the page and wouldn't really be good. But you can play around with the infobox examples below, add the coordinates and map function etc. to see what they both look like (make sure you use the preview button rather than saving your changes) - Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Side-by-side comparison of the two infoboxes for Nottingham Academy
{{Infobox school}} {{Infobox UK school}}
Nottingham Academy
Logo of Nottingham Academy
Address
Greenwood Road

Nottingham
,
Nottinghamshire
,
NG3 7EB

England
Information
Former name
  • Greenwood Dale School
  • Elliott Durham School
  • Jesse Boot Primary School
TypeAll-through Academy
Motto"Be Inspired"
EstablishedSeptember 2009
FoundersMerged
Local authorityCity of Nottingham
OfstedReports
Lead PrincipalMr G Rae
Head of School: Greenwood RoadMr G Rae
Head of School: Ransom RoadMr H Kulaya
Head of School: PrimaryMr S Jones
GenderMixed
Age range3–19
Number of students1984
Sixth form students228
Campuses
  • Greenwood
  • Ransom Road
  • Primary
Colour(s)  Purple   Black
TeamsNottingham Academy Basketball
AccreditationsDrug Aware
Websitenottinghamacademy.org
Last updated: 16 January 2018
Nottingham Academy
Logo of Nottingham Academy
Address
Greenwood Road

Nottingham
,
Nottinghamshire
,
NG3 7EB

England
Information
TypeAll-through Academy
Motto"Be Inspired"
EstablishedSeptember 2009
FounderMerged
Local authorityCity of Nottingham
TrustGreenwood Academies Trust
Department for Education URN135881 Tables
OfstedReports
Lead PrincipalMr G Rae
Head of School: Greenwood RoadMr G Rae
GenderMixed
Age3 to 19
Enrollment1984
Capacity3570
Colour(s)  Purple   Black
Campuses
  • Greenwood
  • Ransom Road
  • Primary
TeamsNottingham Academy Basketball
AccreditationsDrug Aware
Websitenottinghamacademy.org

@Steven (Editor): Do you mind if I add a pushpin map to the first? I know editors were considering adding pushpin capabilities to infobox UK, but the fact I had to open a second inquiry and wait for another discussion to wrap up shows how it's more effective and efficient to have a single adaptable template for schools worldwide. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WhisperToMe: Yeah absolutely, go ahead, but don’t forget it may add the coordinates not just in the Infobox, but to the top right of the page too (like it does on articles) - I didn’t actually save it to see this, but was showing in preview mode. Probably should have added it anyway as we can remove this later. You should add it to the other one too, you know for comparison reasons, but it’s up to you. Yeah I saw that, not good. I can see it’s still a beta-feature, so the merge will reduce the hassle for editors and the need to duplicate things - but having a single adaptable template for schools worldwide is exactly where I’m looking at, a lot of benefits. The reason for tagging those editors only was because they had opposed, I’m trying my best to explain why the templates should be merged. I can understand that initially it wouldn’t have been suitable, but now it definitely is - the Infobox school template is so well-developed, it only requires adding a few parameters similar to the UK URN etc. to cater for schools in another country, as the majority of the parameters are generic. Steven (Editor) (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Steven (Editor): I found that the school has multiple campuses, so I opted instead to add a separate map showing each campus location within the article. As of now the pushpin_map can only be programmed to show a single campus... WhisperToMe (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@WhisperToMe: Yeah if you look at the Infobox school template example for the school above, I've already mentioned their multiple campuses using the campuses parameter. This is an improvement for the pushpin_map, which we can discuss once the merge is complete (if it does go ahead), as there are schools around the world that have multiple campuses, not just the UK. However, it may not be worth updating it, as in the case for the UK, both DfE and Ofsted only lists one address for the school which is the reason for using only one address in the school example above. The campuses parameter would suffice listing the campuses, but would be linked to a section within the article that would provide information about the campuses, where it can include the map that you did that shows the pin location of the multiple campuses - the map you added to the article was good. You can add a map to the infobox examples above if you want by the way (not sure if the last message sounded like I didn't want you to - if it did). Steven (Editor) (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Steven (Editor): @WhisperToMe: Congratulations on an afternoon well spent. While sorting out the templates on Fallibroome Academy and The Winsford Academy I came across the discussion page at Template talk:Infobox UK school where we were discussing the provision of pushpin maps - and discovered Template:Infobox UK school/sandbox. It is there and works. Template:Infobox school/sandbox is also available to edit the source code. Both are open. I hvve changed your edit above to the sandbox version. I spent my afternoon replying to your post of the 1st January where you first raised the suggestion of merger. But you must read the discussion (and add to it) to follow the problems with MATs, I do think it would be better to discuss templates on the templates talk page not here- and suggest that this discussion is moved over.
I am pleasantly surprised by the result of the rendering. We can easily incorporate a lot of the visual improvements into UK schools and I agree a lot of the ordering in schools is better. I now understand what you were saying about Subheading separator bars /Blue Bar Address/Information- there does need to be a wider consideration on these when we consider what to do with MATs. This example is a nice one, but the source text is still confused- as an article it needs a lot of work. I would suggest that as a way forward- the next stage is to take Template:Infobox school/sandbox and incorporate the missing fuctionality and display it back on the [[talk page. Template editing is not hard until you start to include Lua! More laterClemRutter (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ClemRutter: It seems you are still focusing on over-complicating the infobox, as mentioned above and the merge makes sense as I have described above. It's not just the design aspect of the Infobox school template, its many other things too - please read everything I've put above. The reason for choosing this school for the example is because it was established from a merger of three predecessor schools and operates on multiple campuses. I can produce the exact same results with all the other UK schools present on Wikipedia (not just Academy's). There isn't anything difficult about this, all the fields/parameters on the Infobox UK school template (excluding the ones listed above) are already there on the Infobox school template (again, please look at the other reasons for the merger above). It's important to remember (see Help:Infobox) that infoboxes "are like fact sheets, or sidebars, in magazine articles. They quickly summarize important points in an easy-to-read format..." and "excessive length. Long bodies of text, or very detailed statistics, belong in the article body".
1. Regarding your response to my overhaul message I posted on the UK talk page, this was before I re-evaluated everything. I would have not initiated the merger proposal if it did not make sense/was appropriate, but it does make sense (again, please see everything I've mentioned above, including benefits).
2. The other name (alternate names by which the school is known) and former name (names by which the school used to be known) parameters already present in the Infobox school template are important and displayed in the right place at the top, this is for the present school. The predecessor field I've mentioned above would be ideal for it to be situated after these two parameters as mentioned above (don't forget, the use of parameters are optional and dependent on school), but we can discuss if you disagree on the location of the predecessor parameter (both Infobox company and Infobox organization display it before the founder parameter, which helped on my decision for this parameter location)
3. Regarding feeder schools, it's already there in the Infobox school template and are optional!
4. Like I said above about associated schools, the affiliations (any of the school's affiliations (or affiliation) parameter already present in the Infobox school template can be used for associated schools. To prevent over complication and to keep things simple, a word such as "see here" can be used with 'here' linked to MAT section or dedicated article with the list of schools or a section within that article that would discuss the school works with other schools in the trust or associated schools. If you're unhappy with the affiliations parameter which is technically the same meaning as associated (look at the definition and synonyms), we could look at adding an associated schools parameter or you can just use one of the free text labels available.
5. About the MAT, again, we don't want to over complicate the infobox. It would suffice to just mention the Principal and the Chair of Governor for that school, and in the case of Academies, can mention the Executive Principal of the MAT (but the trust section/article would have this anyway). You can make use of the override labels for the chair and multiple principal and head parameters already present on the Infobox school template (more than the UK one) to list these staff and more if you wish. But there's no need to list all the staff as the infobox will be too long! Don't forget the infobox has a link to the schools website which will list all of the staff. Plus, the Trust field would link to either a section on that school article that would simply say the school is part of that trust and works with its other schools (associated) or a link to the trust dedicated section/independent MAT article, which would obviously have all the information about that trust, including the staff that oversees the MAT. Have a look at the independent E-ACT (just added an infobox) which has a list of the schools and brief information about the trust (yes, there is more work needed like many other articles, but you get the idea). Remember the infobox is there to provide an "at-a-glance" information for that school - the trust website is not needed as this will be on the dedicated trust section/article.
6. Nothing wrong with address and information, keeps the infobox neat and tidy, plus there are other infoboxes that have done the same.
7. As a I mentioned above regarding sixth forms, no need for additional sixth form parameters. We would simply just input the age range, such as 11-16/11-18 in the infobox. In the case of an 11-18 school, we would write on the introduction that provides brief information about the school, it mentions the age range and it has a sixth form etc. A sixth form section on the article would be ideal to provide further information. Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break 1[edit]
  • Oppose - while the look-and-feel of the generic template is slightly better, I think it lacks much of the extra data available in the UK template. BTW, there is no such thing as Ofsted number. The number is assigned by the DfE and is named as Unique Reference Number or DFE URN. Would it not be better in the longterm to have a generic template holding all the common data across administrations, and then transclude that template into more specific and more functional national or local school infoboxes? Fob.schools (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fob.schools: If you look at the beginning of this discussion, I have listed the missing Infobox UK school fields/parameters that need to be copied over to the Infobox school template. It is also mentioned in the text above the side-by-side comparison (I have now mentioned your name there) - Under the bulleted list, I put: "It would be a good idea to have a look at the Infobox UK schools template example to see what the above fields look like in the infobox and that this can be replicated for the Infobox school template". I have already addressed the issue with the LEA and Ofsted parameters currently present in the Infobox school template and the missing DfE URN and so on. It's all there above. Steven (Editor) (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - While on most topics I agree a single template is best, I do think in this case it would cause things to become overly complex as the UK education system is a unique one, and would loose the integrity of the UK education articles. Although I think the UK infobox does need some work in order to clear up URN's and establishment numbers as the DfE has changed these again lately and I had to fix the links in the edubase template. Mark999 (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which aspects are unique about the UK educational system that would complicate a template merge? I believe every other country uses the common template and many countries have unique systems too. Schools in Japan, Russia, Brazil, etc. all use the common template. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second this WhisperToMe question. If only people could start describing what such "complexities" actually are. For example, if there were a shaking 1927 UK law that changed everything — that could merit a dedicated parameter. But I've not read such a concrete note. Also, there alway is the check on whether any school detail (in the article body) is important enough that it must be in its infobox, which is summarising by definition. -DePiep (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, in short: per nom (OP) and no convincing objections after that.
Already the nom describes this as a quite simple option, with 8 (only eight!) parameters to be added (not even merged!). I have read the thread, and I have not found one convincing reason on why UK schools could not be infoboxed by the general {{Infobox school}}. It seems like most opponents are confused by the change of habit (slightly different parameter set) required for UK schools, or by [my wording] "UK school history is fundamentally different from other school history, and can not be covered by any same parameter" &tc. Again, not convincing. Nor are the "example" articles that suppose to show or prove that this UK school can-not-be-described in the other infobox. Instead, these opposing arguments actually show that the UK template is too detailed (UK-tailored), while any infobox is supposed to be broadly covering its subject. IOW, those microscopic issues pointed to are way too detailed to merit a separate, more individual infobox: if that detail is prohibitive for this merge, then probably it does not belong in an infobox at all. Also, {{infobox school}} is undoubtedly better designed, so all UK school articles would benefit. -DePiep (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for nom Steven (Editor): could you give a short description of the benefits that {{Infobox UK school}} would gain by this merge. That is, those extra parameters present in {{Infobox school}}? (not all, just highlights & descriptions) -DePiep (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep: Sure and I am pleased to see what you had put regarding the merge above. Here are the additional parameters that UK schools would be able to take benefit of (listed majority and don't think I need to provide descriptions for each one, as this is available in the Infobox school documentation/we should be able to get an idea of what they are anyway. They are pretty much generic terms that apply to schools around the world):
other_name, former_name, coordinates_footnotes, type/schooltype/fundingtype variation, patron (Gordon's School is an example), status, sister_school (City of London School/City of London School for Girls is an example), category (with override label), the numerous parameters for key people/officials of the school, especially multiple chair/head/headteacher/principal with override labels, teaching_staff (staff already present, but this is another term), employees, gender (already present, but override label is available), age_range, sixth_form_students, pupils, enrolment_as_of, classes, average_class_size, ratio, classes_offered, language, hours_in_day, classrooms, campus/campuses, campus_size, area, campus_type, school_colours (colours already present, but this is another term), slogan, song (Dartford Grammar School is an example), athletics, sports, teams with override label (Nottingham Academy is an example which you can see above), team_name, rival/rivals, accreditation/accreditations, communities, feeder_schools/feeder_to, affiliations, alumni, nobel_laureates, information, more free_text labels, footnotes, picture/picture2 and its caption parameters, module, lastupdate
Hope this helps, there could be a few more parameters I may have missed, but these are optional and every school is different, so only the ones which are applicable to that school would be used - not all of them have to be used anyway, but they are there which is a benefit. Collapsible lists can also be used for certain parameters if needed. Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Asked here because these too are a potential improvement for the UK school template. -DePiep (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose largely per ClemRutter. Schools are a complex topic these days. They have significant per-country variations in how they are organised, and how an infobox ought to represent them. I see no reason why merging to "make things simpler" et al. would be any sort of improvement here. If the UK infobox is lacking in formatting, then update and fix it. There is no reason we'd have to merge it in order to do this. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure schools are different. Worldwide they are. Now could you explain why UK schools are so much more different? And also: why can not that "difference" be Possibly Be Shown in an Other infobox? Why? (IOW, why is UK the only country apart from ~180 that are happy & OK with {{tlf|Infobox school}?). - DePiep (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that UK schools are unique, it's that each and every country's schools are organised differently. It is far easier for us to organise a practical infobox for schools per-country than it is to try and make a single superbox which can do everywhere. If this introduces a management task of maintaining consistency between these infoboxes, then that's not so bad.
It's also not about making the infobox. That's done once, by experienced editors. What's much more important is to offer the infobox(es) for less experienced editors to use, where it's easy for them to use it for one country at a time. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be a nightmare to have to maintain a different infobox for each of the 100+ countries out there, and in the case of binational/international schools you'd have to choose between multiple templates. I work on international school articles around the world and I greatly appreciate the common template; no matter which national system (French, German, Japanese, Indian) or host country (Burkina Faso, Paraguay, Spain, Australia) it's all the same template. It's also easier for the editor as he/she has to only familiarize himself/herself with one template. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It really wouldn't, so long as you had a body of editors in each of those 100+ countries happy to maintain their little corner. I think you would get short shrift from those who work with {{Infobox NFL team}}, {{Infobox American football team}}, {{Infobox GAA county}} and {{Infobox Australian football club}} if you told them they had to merge to single template covering all their requirements. We are not talking about 100+. We are talking about losing 1 infobox, which undoubtedly has better functionality than the generic equivalent, but which is well supported, used and maintained by a cohort of competent users and which suits the purpose for which it is designed. The combined generic template is heading towards becoming an all-encompassing behemoth - difficult to maintain, probably expensive to render (in server terms). And with regard to familiarity of editors, normally with schools editors start by editing their own school, move on to neighbouring schools, and don't really expand much out of their own universe. So I think the familiarity argument is a red herring. Fob.schools (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly American football and Australia football are different varieties of football and the teams don't play each other. Secondly, take the Lycée Français de Tenerife which is in Spain and grant bth French and Spanish diplomas. Which template would you use, French or Spanish? I would think such conflicts would take too much editor attention; a single template means all relevant functionality would be in the same place.
If the UK template has important functionality, combine it. IMO making a behemoth does not make using the template difficult as, when working with it, you only need to include some, not all, of the fields. By leaving out irrelevant fields it becomes simple to duplicate and use. In terms of maintenance (changing things) I honestly don't do that a lot, but I believe using the control-F function to quickly find relevant parts should help.
WhisperToMe (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Has there ever been complained by say French, Spanish, Indian, ... school editors that the single infobox is too difficult to handle? Or, why is it that English school editors cannot work with the universal infobox? I get the impression that opponents are adding arguments speaking for someone else - which is hard to discuss about because it always remains abstract. Could someone please point to a genuine actual existing issue against merging? - 14:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I thought that the case needed to be made in favour of change, not the other way round. In other words, rather than us having to argue against merging, it is those that are arguing for the merge that need to make the case. Failure to do so would mean things would stay as they are.
If a group of french or spanish editors came up with an innovative and functionally-enhanced infobox which was easier to use and delivered more detail about french or spanish schools without cluttering up the generic template, I'd be encouraging them to go for it, if I heard about it. But that is unlikely as I dont tend to edit such articles.
And American schools and English schools are different varieties of school. So why is that any different from different varieties of football? The schools don't compete against each other. WhisperToMe seems to be making my case for me. And there isn't a French or Spanish template so I would use neither. However TASIS England uses {{Infobox school}} while the rest of the schools in Surrey use the UK Infobox. Its really not very difficult.
Further the idea that many/most fields could be left out, sort of defeats the purpose of merging the templates, i.e. to standardise the presentation.
I get the impression that this change seems to be proposed for the benefit of wiki editors, rather than wiki readers, which seems like a bad idea to me. Fob.schools (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
International schools in various countries actually do compete with each others in sports. For example all the German schools in East Asia play in the same sports competitions. And international schools in the same city doing sports competitions use different educational systems. In Shanghai you have French, German, British, Japanese, Korean, American, Russian, and IB schools.
And in terms of competing for students, boarding schools in Switzerland, the UK, and the US compete with each other too. Say there is a Japanese man in Barcelona. His kids finished the 9th grade at the Japanese School of Barcelona. The man wants his kids to have a Japanese high school education, but there is no Japanese schooling option there. He could send them to a boarding school in Japan, or to one of three in Europe: Kumon Leysin in Switzerland or Teikyo School United Kingdom or Rikkyo School in England. Those three compete with each other for Japanese boarding students in Europe. (speaking of which, since they're Japanese schools, don't they need the common template? or since they're in the UK, use the UK one? or why don't we solve the problem by combining the templates?) - Even in the same city (say Shanghai) a Korean woman may choose between the Korean school or an English language school.
When thinking about all the Template:international schools in Shanghai, you'd want them to have the same presentation, so schools of different origins can easily be compared, without having to adjust to a new format for each national educational system.
Re: "However TASIS England uses {{Infobox school}} while the rest of the schools in Surrey use the UK Infobox. Its really not very difficult." Doesn't Ofsted have jurisdiction over the school? What if it's binational? It can become difficult through the other examples I provided.
WhisperToMe (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Solving the Middle East peace process is difficult. Comparing 2 schools using different infoboxes is not difficult. Thats it. Fob.schools (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Considering Steven's samples, I notice the different layouts leave my eyes to dart different places trying to see which fields are where. Having a single template with one layout means its way easier comparing the different fields. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the examples were there to show how similar they are and how easy it would be to move from one to the other. I had no trouble matching them up. Maybe it's just you? Fob.schools (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to move data between the templates, but the differing layouts mean that if I was reading the infoboxes, comparing two schools with different templates the task would be complicated. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WhisperToMe and DePiep, I also want to add - I really don't understand what the actual problem is with merging the UK one with the standard one - the mentioning of complexity, UK schools being unique and so on (absolutely the same can be said about schools in other countries). All of the fields/parameters except the ones mentioned at the start of this discussion are already there in the Infobox school template (6/8 listed are UK-specific parameters, just a simple case of adding these to the standard one). I have also provided a side-by-side comparison which as you can see, provides the same information and looks better. I've also listed above the additional parameters UK schools would be able to take benefit of. What's so complicated about this? If the same approach was to be adopted like the UK where each country has its own Infobox school template, it would be a nightmare and a mess with more infoboxes to maintain. Whether there should be more infoboxes or not is dependent on the subject, in the case of schools, a standard one makes sense. Plus, if you actually have a look at the Infobox school template (well-developed), you have a basic syntax - "an empty infobox with the most common options" - for any school around the world (name, type, established etc. are generic terms and apply to every school, think about duplicated parameters if we had separate infoboxes). You also have a US and Australian school example; there's an empty infobox (basically Australian syntax) with fields/parameters applicable to Australian schools. The same would be done for the UK and there would be an example and an empty infobox. From this, you only need to use what's applicable to that school as every school is different. You're not required to use the full syntax because this is all of the fields/parameters; a really long list (you can if you want, if you're willing to delete the parameters not needed for that school)! But do you see how this keeps things organised and simple - not to mention that using a single infobox helps with consistency across schools on Wikipedia. It does look a bit like there is a biased/preferential for UK schools to have their own infobox. Steven (Editor) (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Steven (Editor), it is not about arguments any more. All have been posted. Let's drop the postings, and wait for a well-understanding outside admin to conclude. Maybe even that admin could find a bright solution we did not even think of. - DePiep (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administration note I am evaluating the arguments in this discussion, and I encourage more discussion on the matter, but I will not be relisting this because it's already large enough as it is (and the other discussions on this page are relatively small). If another admin wishes to close this they are welcome to, but I thought I'd mention that it would likely be best if we leave it where it is. Primefac (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge as a complete outsider to this topic. Any extra functionality that {{Infobox UK school}} has should be added to {{Infobox school}}. Two templates shouldn't be doing the job of one. Ham II (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge after adding the missing parameters to Infobox School. I don't see that UK schools are so different that they require a separate infobox; the main school infobox has been sufficient for all other countries. I believe it is best to focus our efforts on Infobox School rather than split our attention maintaining multiple templates. EyeTripleE (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge and add missing fields to the main template. WolreChris (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on all of the potential pitfalls mentioned above, I am not confident all of the issues can be fully addressed. It will cause unnecessary chaos in the process as each problem is detected and ultimately fixed. A lot of effort for what? To eliminate one template. Somebody gets a brownie point for a successful deletion. Big deal. Let UK, or any other country, have their own template for whatever useful purpose. That way they can construct to suit the needs of their project. Trackinfo (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What "pitfalls" do you mean? Already with the original proposal, the 8 (only eight!) missing parameters were listed. What do you mean by "chaos"? The proposal, and multiple supporters, show this is in control. - DePiep (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC),[reply]
I second this DePiep question. I think we may be looking at 7 now, the old_urn parameter link is broken and just takes you to "no longer exists..." page. I even searched for a couple of former schools (both name and old URNs) on the Ofsted website and there's nothing, just comes up with "no longer exists...". I'm not sure, but it does look like the Government/Ofsted are no longer showing reports for former schools, instead opting to show the ones for current schools only. I think this is a good thing (for merger too), kind of makes sense, but will have to see. Actually, according to Ofsted, it's removed after 3/5 years. I don't see the point of this parameter anyway - too detailed but bringing this up in another discussion at a later time. Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:51, 10 February 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_17&oldid=825815687"