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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Actor-model-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:US-actor-model-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused stub templates for the intersection of two tangentially related occupations, whose associated categories were deleted by WP:CFD as non-defining. People who are notable as actors or actresses can be stub-sorted as actors or actresses, and people who were notable as models can be stub-sorted as models, without needing a separate stub category or template for people who were both actors and models. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete These should have been deleted along with the categories per the CFD outcome. SD0001 (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 28. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox_Politburo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox_legislature (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 no consensus to merge so do not merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox academic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox scientist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox academic with Template:Infobox scientist.
I'm afraid this is largely overlapping, though "academic" is an accidental feature and "scientist" the essential one? PPEMES (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm weakly opposed. I don't see the benefit of merging the two because, while there is overlap, there are many academics who are not scientists (i.e., humanists) and {{infobox scientist}} seems to have parameters specifically for botanists and zoologists. If they do get merged, I would recommend ibox scientist be merged into ibox academic rather than the other way, since ibox academic is more general. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Largely overlapping. Many scientist are also academics & vice versa. Examples in the documentation of {{Infobox academic}} include "discipline = Physicist" and "Academic discipline - Sub-atomic research", while {{Infobox scientist}} has various parameters for the subject's students. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge. Just as there are many academics who are not scientists, so also there are scientists who are not academics. My late father was a scientist, but there is no way he could ever be described as an "academic". --NSH001 (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge. Strong oppose to merge (see explanatory comment below). Some academics are not scientists, some scientists are not academics, so a merged template only makes sense for scientists who are academics. There might be scope for a more general template that embraces both (in content and name), but until there is they should both be kept. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creation of such a template is exactly what the proposal you oppose is suggesting. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it isn't. The proposal is to merge them, which is what I and others specifically opposed. Neither name is suitable for a merged template so it is misleading to redirect either to the other. I made a tentative proposal that a new broader template could cover both, which gets some support below. This could be discussed constructively. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why make it more complicated than it has to be - what about "infobox scientists and academics"? PPEMES (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it is. There is nothing to say that a merged template has to retain one of the old names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        The question we need to resolve here is "are the templates {{Infobox academic}} and {{Infobox scientist}} sufficiently similar that a single template could serve all of the articles that use them?" If so, then the name doesn't matter because it's not exposed to the reader. We could host the merged template at "academic" and have "scientist" as a redirect, or vice-versa; or have it at another title with two redirects; or no redirects if we wanted. It's important to realise that the name of an infobox is a convenience to identify it, not a classification of its usage. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        • If we consider how Category:Scholars and academics have handled it, what about "Infobox scholars", "Infobox scholars and academics", or something to that effect? PPEMES (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      • P.S. You do know that, once the templates are merged to a new name, both "Infobox academic" and "Infobox scientist" would be retained as redirects? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge, as per User:Jts1882 above. I would love to see some work done to reconcile common or very similar attributes of the academic and scientist templates, perhaps even moving some of the common features into infobox person, but I think a merge is not desirable. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per JTS1882. DS (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, not all scientists are academics, not all academics are scientists Duncan.Hull (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They do not need to be; the questions is, how similar are the infoboxes, and do we need two, and if so, why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think a clearer description of the intended outcome could address the "many academics are not scientists, many scientists are not academics" issue. Looking at the parameters, I could imagine all of them being encompassed in a "researcher" template, for example. But since I primarily work on pages about academics who are not scientists, it's a little worrying to hear "'academic' is an accidental feature and 'scientist' the essential one" -- it makes it sound like the features in the "academic" infobox would be removed, which I consider obviously undesirable. What is the impetus for the merge? / What would the merge change? ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 21:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No clear rationale for the merger, very clear reasons for not merging (ie the majority of academics are not scientists). I struggle to think of a term that could encompass the two without causing further problems of generalisation (eg renaming as "specialist" would lead to the inclusion of all sorts of activities far removed from what is intended...as would "researcher"). --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rationale is the one set out at Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: "Infobox:Historian" already redirects to "infobox scientist" --Liverpoolpics (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the point is not that there are some people who are scientists but not academics and vice versa. The point is that there is enough overlap and one template could easily handle the two circumstances. A single template reduces maintenance burden and promotes standardization. A new name for the merged template may be in order. Ergo Sum 14:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just taken a second look. What parameters are unique to each template? I count one or two at most. Ergo Sum 16:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge: the umbrella of academia covers nearly every profession imaginable: humanities, medicine, law, theology, finance, accounting, business administration, technology, engineering, government, and so on and so on... They are all distinct concepts and categories, and any generic catch-all category of all of these thing lumped into one would be largely meaningless. Re: another comment abou "Infobox: historian" redirecting to infobox: scientist: historian ought to redirect to ACADEMIC, not scientist, because historians are not scientists, and historians are also one of the very few categories in which practically all of them *would* also be academics. Firejuggler86 (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose I have created and expanded articles for several historians, and the academic infobox works very well. An excellent example of its use can be found at Eric Foner. Historians should not be classified as scientists. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional merge: I support merge to infobox academic, but only if a parameter such as "|scientist=yes" is added to indicate science vs humanities. Otherwise, I oppose.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The words 'scientists' and 'academics' are not synonymous. Nerd271 (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Neither are the words "judge" and "president" synonymous, but we manage to serve both groups quite well with the same template. --RexxS (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That may be true, but is irrelevant. These categories are too broad. Moreover, what works for two groups does not necessary work for another pair. Nerd271 (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  These are not categories: they are merely the names for the templates, and no reader sees them, so "too broad" is meaningless. Of course, the other side of your argument also holds true: what doesn't work for two groups may work for another pair. And that's why your original argument is equally irrelevant. --RexxS (talk) 10:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, so you do acknowledge my argument. But what you derived from it, I am afraid, is invalid. There should be different templates for different categories. Both judges and presidents can be categorized as office holders. But scientists and academics are not of the same category. Mathematicians, natural scientists, and computer scientists can be broadly grouped as scientists; people in the humanities, on the other hand, have their own group. Each broad group – but not too broad – should get their own template. Nerd271 (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No, your argument is nonsense. Infobox naming is not categorisation. There is no reason whatsoever that we should have "different templates for different categories". {{Infobox person}} is used for hundreds of different categories of people because they use the same parameters. {{Infobox settlement}} is used for dozens of different categories of places because they use the same parameters. There is no good reason to associate "each broad group" with a different template if a single template can do the job. You do realise that we can use redirects to make use of as many names as required, while keeping a single template, which makes maintenance and updating much easier? --RexxS (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I quite agree with the other opposes above. Just to provide an example of why a single template is a bad idea, I give you this article. Apparently, a few years ago, Template:Historian was oddly merged into Scientist rather than Academic, causing a historian to have a "scientific career" listed in her infobox (I only recently discovered this after having been inactive on WP for a while). This sort of confusion is why we should keep the above templates separate. (Also, Template:Historian should really be merged into Academic but that is for a different discussion). Ruby2010 (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The merger under discussion would resolve the issue you highlight. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The nomination doesn't make a case for this and the historian/scientist example shows how this can go wrong. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose for the arguments stated by the people who actively work with these infoboxes and know them in and out. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have no special authority; I support a merge and work with both templates and know them in and out, and you don't speak for me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose——联合果君 (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merger: not all academics are scientists; not all scientists are academics; and a merger would conflate the two. That aside, no stated reason is sufficient enough to oppose. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Would've voted earlier, but seemed like everyone already did that for me. Voting now anyway just because. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Seems entirely unnecessary. MargaretRDonald (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Why would scientists be merged with academics, and not every other discipline? Which does not mean that both could not be improved - see table below. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 21:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: per JTS1882. --Balabinrm (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as both are significantly different. –Davey2010^Talk 17:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that what the template below shows? Or does it show that the two templates are in fact quite similar? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because they're similar doesn't make them the same, I would consider academic and scientist to be 2 different fields and therefore not the same. Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 15:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge merge under the name academic. Most scientist are academics or at the least all scientist are academic-esque in nature. A solution for this is just to put a scientist parameter within the academic infobox. Llakew18 (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It promotes confusion, especially with newer editors using templates. A new editor creating a page on a scientist will find it counterintuitive to use an academic's template, and vice versa. Merging the two also restricts the possibility of adding more specific parameters to the templates, if necessary. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary: my experience - of regularly teaching new users, at both learned societies and univesities - is that confusion is caused by having these two overlapping infoboxes. Many of the biographies my trainees write are about people who are both academics and scientists. Nor would a merge preclude the addition of the hypthetical future properties to which you refer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for anyone else, but only for myself as a relatively junior editor. I have used the template when writing a legal academic's biography and I would definitely have found it confusing to use a scientist's infobox, and to know which parameters should be filled up and which should not. Perhaps I am discounting the other kind of confusion that might appear when someone is both an academic and a scientist, and then the editor doesn't know which one to choose. But in that case, wouldn't it be better to have a line on the template page saying "the scientist infobox covers subjects who are both scientists and scientific researchers"? To your second point, I agree, but it makes it at least slightly more difficult, exacerbating the problem I mentioned earlier of parameters specific to one type of subject. I can't see enough of a benefit to merge the two from this page so far to outweigh these concerns. In any event, the proposed resolution must account for both of our concerns, or else it would simply be replacing one problem with another. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment following from what Oulfis said above, would it make sense to rename "Infobox academic" to "Infobox researcher", add any missing parameters, and merge? Then things would be tidier - and probably work better for the public, who in my experience of editathons and outreach work don't always know the difference between academic and non-academic (and there are a lot of grey areas in the middle, both inside and outside science, for whom this compromise might work much better too)? Zeromonk (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a comparison of the parameters in the two templates:

Parameter	Infobox academic	Infobox scientist
academic_advisors
alma_mater
alt
author_abbrev_bot
author_abbrev_zoo
author_abbreviation_bot
author_abbreviation_zoo
awards
birth_date
birth_name
birth_place
boards
caption
child
children
citizenship
death_cause
death_date
death_place
denomination
discipline
doctoral_advisor
doctoral_advisors
doctoral_students
education
embed
era
field
fields
footnotes
home_town
homepage
honorific prefix honorific_prefix
honorific suffix honorific_suffix
image
image_name
image_size imagesize
image_upright
influenced
influences
known_for
main_interests
major_works
module
name
nationality
native_name
native_name_lang
nocat_wdimage
non-academic
notable_ideas
notable_students
notable_works notableworks
occupation
other_names othernames
parents
partner
partners
patrons
period
principal_ideas
prizes
pronounce Pronounce
pronounce 2
pronounce comment
pronounce ref
Pronunciation pronunciation
relatives
resting place resting_place restingplace
resting place coordinates resting_place_coordinates restingplacecoordinates
school_tradition
siglum
signature
signature alt signature_alt
signature_size
spouse
spouses
sub_discipline
thesis_title
thesis_url
thesis_year
thesis1_title
thesis1_url
thesis1_year
thesis2_title
thesis2_url
thesis2_year
title
titles
URL
website
work_institution
work_institutions
workplaces

I have yet to determine why, for example, we think that scientists do not sit on boards, or that academics do not get buried when they die. Or why we believe that divorced or widowed scientists might remarry, but that divorced or widowed academics do not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Perhaps we should simply make a Template:Scholar (with both the above columns) then? PPEMES (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, we just wait to for the people opposing a merge to tell us what in the above table justifies having two templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as the proposal was advanced with an apparent presumption that it would not be controversial, so the case for it was presumed obvious and not stated plainly. The case is not obvious (obviously) and there is reason to doubt that the merge will be handled with care. This is not a case of people protecting their hobby-horse topic and making unnecessary work for maintainers. There comes a point where a template can have so many optional parameters that it becomes difficult to use. Multiple layers of abstraction (redirects) are not a satisfying solution for all editors. The logical endpoint of the merge mania I’m detecting is for all infoboxes about professions to be merged into {{infobox person}}. (Cue badgering response from User:Pigsonthewing in 3... 2...) — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 05:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The proposal for merge seems to be based simply on the mechanics of the template rather than about content of the infobox that is exposed to the reader and why it is used for a particular article. Naturally they use similar parameters because they both wrap {{infobox person}}. The whole point of wrapping standard templates is to customise the infobox for particular uses. When we look at {{infobox academic}} we see sections Academic background and Academic work, while {{infobox scientist}} has Scientific career. An academic working in french literature or lingusitics doesn't have a scientific career and a scientist working in the pharaceutical or technology indistries doesn't have an academic career. Merging the templates would lead to more absurdities like historians having scientifc careers because {{infobox historian}} redirects to {{infobox scientist}}. This discussion should not be about inner workings of the template, it should be considering whether it improves the presentation of information in an accurate, precise, clear and understandable form for the reader. That is why wrapper templates are used to customise {{infobox person}}. The proposed simple merger will make the infobox less clear and less accurate and none of the rebuttals to the merger objections have even addressed what the reader sees. This is a classic case of not seeing the wood (infobox) for the trees (parameters). I'm changing my position above to Strong oppose. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Merging the templates would lead to more absurdities like historians having scientifc careers " No, the merge would resolve that issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:SNOW close and oppose - There is a clear consensus not to merge here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 28. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox_pageant_titleholder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox_model (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 relisted on 2020 March 28. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox_Playboy_Playmate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox_model (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 keep. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox executive government (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox government (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox executive government with Template:Infobox government.
Could we use a merge here? PPEMES (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – These templates are for two completely separate things. The 'executive government' template is for articles about governments in the parliamentary sense, that is, the administration or executive. The 'government' template is for articles relating to government in the American sense of 'political system'. RGloucester — ☎ 18:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – 联合果君 (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - No rationale is given for the merge, and per RGloucester, the templates are for different things. The distinction is useful. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Native American leader (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox person (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Native American leader with Template:Infobox person.
I know it concerns a wrapper, but the variable "clan" is arguably not specific enough to merit a specific ethnic group template. There are many infobox person-articles where that is a potentially relevant variable despite not necessarly pertaining to an office holder. Hence why not merge? As an alternative perhaps also to Template:Infobox officeholder. PPEMES (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Native American leader is based on Template:Infobox officeholder and is very different from Template:Infobox person, so the amount of changes and single-use parameters needed in Infobox person to accommodate it would be ridiculous.
  The idea of merging into Template:Infobox officeholder would be worth looking at, but it seems to me that Template:Infobox Native American leader has three parameters not implemented in Template:Infobox officeholder: |tribe=, |role= and |mother_tongue=. Are these useful beyond Template:Infobox Native American leader? If not, then that's exactly why we have wrappers. In any case, I'd be loathe to see |mother_tongue= implemented in Template:Infobox officeholder, as we'd then have loads of infoboxes where well-meaning editors start adding |mother_tongue=English completely redundantly, increasing the infobox bloat with trivia. --RexxS (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Wrong target. If anything, it should be merged with {{Infobox officeholder}}, but RexxS makes good points in opposition to that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Merging with officeholder seems like a good alternative solution. Well, why is mother tongue relevant to this wrapper then and if so not applicable with the same arguments elsewhere? Would it be an idea to treat that variable in a more categorial way then? PPEMES (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, there are 6 articles (search on hastemplate:"Infobox Native American leader" insource:/mother_tongue *= *\[/) that use the parameter. Would it improve those articles to remove the parameter? It's clearly inappropriate to use |mother_tongue= in any of the 150,000 articles that use Template:Infobox officeholder – otherwise please give an example of one that would benefit.

  As I see it, we have three alternatives:

  1. Remove the mother_tongue field from six articles when merging Template:Infobox Native American leader into Template:Infobox officeholder.
  2. Implement the mother_tongue field when merging Template:Infobox Native American leader into Template:Infobox officeholder, knowing that it's not for use in 150,000 of them.
  3. Leave things as they are.

  I'm still not seeing what advantage the first two options have over the third. --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. If so, I'm afraid I'm leaning 1, should you not come up with a reason for why one single specific language speaker group and no others should be afforded this variable? PPEMES (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The parameter was added in 2015 by Pigsonthewing, so you could ask him why Native American leaders' mother tongue is a useful field. Or you could read the thread Template talk:Infobox Native American leader #Parameters not showing up in Infobox to get an idea of the demand that existed for the field. In any case, I don't have to come up with a reason, as the onus naturally falls on you to demonstrate why removing a parameter that has enjoyed five years consensus would improve the encyclopedia. I still haven't heard your reasoning beyond "we should do this, because we can". Who benefits? --RexxS (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The most obvious reason as it seemeth to me for why mother tongue is a useful field for Native American leaders is thus: American Indian tribes have the unique status of "dependent sovereign nations" within another sovereign state; they are also descended from a broad variety of different cultures with different languages, which is not categorically obvious, as it most undoubtedly IS for the overwhelming majority of the 150,000 articles that use tube officeholder infobox (e.g., it's not useful to highlight that a British officeholders mother tongue is English, nor that a French officeholders mother tongue is French, etc). Firejuggler86 (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, wrong target, and appears to have good reasons to be a wrapper. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per RexxS. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose.——联合果君 (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge to Officeholder - aside from 'mother tongue' there is really nothing that cannot be easily replicated. Just because the parameter does not say 'tribe' does not mean the tribe's name cannot be put in it. 'Mother tongue' is not useful in an infobox, imo. The mother tongue will be dependent upon what tribe they were a member of - would it not? It does not serve any real purpose as far as I can tell, anymore than putting that the Attila spoke Hunnic. The native leader is a very simple infobox and there is no reason for it to standalone in my opinion. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per RexxS. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 organization. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox United Nations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox organization (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox United Nations with Template:Infobox organization.
Seems largely redundant? PPEMES (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The UN infobox is more limited and the UN logo doesn't really fit on many articles, so there's no need for the UN infobox.– BrandonXLF (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This is effectively a watered down version of Infobox Organisation, there is no point unless there are some specific differences that require there to be a template for the UN. Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge WP:INFOCOL. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 10:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge As long as we maintain the uniformity within the UN pages, so that readers can tell the difference, it makes complete sense to use a template that is more kitted out for it's purpose --2A00:23C7:E40E:4B00:E58E:96B5:370C:569F (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Template:Infobox United Nations is redundant and doesn't display any significant parameters that can't covered by Template:Infobox organization and is just a reduced version of Organization template specific for UN which is totally unnecessary. UN as any other intergovernmental organisation can fit very well in existing templates like others. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: there seems to be no reason why the UN should have a separate infobox.--Melberg (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 28. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox_clergy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox_Christian_leader (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 relisted on 2020 March 28. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Campaign_medals_of_the_Honourable_East_India_Company (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:British_campaign_medals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 relisted on 2020 March 28. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox_pretender (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox_royalty (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 relisted on 2020 March 28. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox_gunpowder_plotter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox_criminal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 relisted on 2020 March 28. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox_peer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox_noble (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 merge to Template:Infobox militant organization. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox war faction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox militant organization (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox war faction with Template:Infobox militant organization.
Sure that or else into Template:Infobox military unit? PPEMES (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per WP:INFOCOL Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 13:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 award. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox military award (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox award (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox military award with Template:Infobox award.
Seemingly large overlap means significant potential for a merge? PPEMES (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, as long as all military fields are preserved Garuda28 (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per WP:INFOCOL Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 13:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox identity document (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox document (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox identity document with Template:Infobox document.
Destination template not particularly cluttered. Surely a general catch-all infobox could handle the total, merged scope?. PPEMES (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not merge These do not seem to be similar; one is for a class of documents, the other for specific individual documents. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Do not merge 。——联合果君 (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not merge Identity documents have a specific legal meaning, often related to nationality as well as identity. They are not simply generic documents. (Kreb (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox ethnonym (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox ethnic group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox ethnonym with Template:Infobox ethnic group.
Merge into proper variables in the destination template? PPEMES (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom - as can be seen on Fula people, for example, these are used together. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The purposes of the templates are different. 'Ethnic group' is intended for ethnicity articles and covers info about the people -- population, location, etc. 'Ethnonym' is intended for language articles and covers non-trivial derivations of the word. It's intended for situations where the people and language may have different grammatical forms in English-language sources, and wouldn't even apply to much of the world (e.g Europe).

Also, we'd have two competing titles, the endonym for 'Ethnonym' and the English exonym for 'Ethnic group'. Assuming these are different, which one gets priority? E.g., take the article Baganda, where people have decided that the Bantu plural rather than the root should be used as the name of the article. Should the title of 'Ethnic group' be changed to 'Ganda' to accommodate 'Ethnonym', despite disagreeing with the title of the article? And if 'Baganda' is used, how do we accommodate the 'Ethnonym' template, since that is incorrect as the root of the name? — kwami (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't the total of your concern be dealt with in one single template? PPEMES (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per kwami. {{Infobox ethnonym}} is used on both ethnicity and language articles (but mostly on language articles), and if merged it will have to be merged both into {{infobox language}} and {{infobox ethnic group}}. There might be merits to the proposal that this information belongs inside those infoboxes, but there are also good reasons to keep such lists of words separate (as for example is common in Buddhist articles: {{Buddhist term}} is used after infoboxes, as at Aṅgulimāla). Also, I don't think the post-merge increase in complexity of both target templates is going to be worth the trouble as {{Infobox ethnonym}} has a much narrower sphere of use (confined to Sub-Saharan Africa, as far as I can see). – Uanfala (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per kwami. Seen both of these templates on several African articles, and both have been useful. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Please note that Template:Infobox tribe has an equivalent variable readily included without creating any obvious problems. PPEMES (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose.——联合果君 (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Does the opposition here above advocate extracting demonym variable from Template:Infobox country into a new template as well? PPEMES (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:INFOCOL Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 13:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. An ethnonym is a NAME. It is NOT an ethnic group. It would be like claiming an acronym is a type of organization, because the U.N. is the acronym for United Nations. It refers to the NAME only. PPEMES Please stop these disruptive template merging nominations when you don't even understand the subject. This is not helping anyone. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A name of what? According to ethonym it is "a name applied to a given ethnic group". Did misunderstand that sentence? PPEMES (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

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:United States topics. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Life in the United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:United States topics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Life in the United States with Template:United States topics.
To merge into the "culture" section? PPEMES (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, if done carefully. That way page viewers will have much more of an overall selection of history, etc., to consider when viewing the template. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• question what will this mean in terms of appearance to readers? I suspect that this template was created separately just so readers would not have to wade through the target template just to find these American people related articles. Hmains (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The intention is improved overview, which is a part of the purpose of templates except navigation. The merged contexts should be properly located in relevant sections, so it wouldn't mean wading through random scattered entries. PPEMES (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Properly and carefully seem like key words here. Most of the entries belong in a culture section. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom Overlapping topics. Dimadick (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 March 28. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Nature_reserves_of_Estonia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:AwardsDecadeHeader (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used; required Template:BDDecadesInCentury which has been deleted. – Fayenatic London 10:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. PPEMES (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).