November 15
Template:Infobox American Indian chief
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Redundant to {{ Infobox person}} or {{ Infobox officeholder}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No it's not. The template contains parameters like "tribe", something which is not duplicated in either template. Merging it into the latter template also implies that the chief is elected to a term.
Kevin Rutherford (
talk)
00:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Any alternative suggestions for a merge target? Presumably there are significant similarities here with other tribal leader systems, if not with elected leaders. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 15:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Why is it even necessary or desirable to merge? If the template is working perfectly fine as it is, merging into something else is only going to achieve more unnecessary overcomplicated template code that can only be edited by a handful of specialists. Spinning Spark 23:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Kevin Rutherford & SpinningSpark. Contains parameters unique to the subject, not found in other templates. Not redundant, no need for merging.-- JayJasper ( talk) 19:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
November 15
Template:Infobox American Indian chief
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Redundant to {{ Infobox person}} or {{ Infobox officeholder}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No it's not. The template contains parameters like "tribe", something which is not duplicated in either template. Merging it into the latter template also implies that the chief is elected to a term.
Kevin Rutherford (
talk)
00:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Any alternative suggestions for a merge target? Presumably there are significant similarities here with other tribal leader systems, if not with elected leaders. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 15:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Why is it even necessary or desirable to merge? If the template is working perfectly fine as it is, merging into something else is only going to achieve more unnecessary overcomplicated template code that can only be edited by a handful of specialists. Spinning Spark 23:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Kevin Rutherford & SpinningSpark. Contains parameters unique to the subject, not found in other templates. Not redundant, no need for merging.-- JayJasper ( talk) 19:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.