I am very concerned that the closure of this discussion was improper. It appears to be a !vote count, and not to include any analysis of the points made in the discussion. I raised the matter on the talk page of the editor who closed it, User:DavidLeighEllis (not an admin), asking "please will you explain how you weighed up the arguments, rather than simply counting !votes? (Your one-word comment on closing does not do so)" and did not receive a satisfactory answer, but rather gained the impression that David did not act in a neutral manner, imposing his own view of the case. When I commented again, I was referred here. I suggest that the discussion be reopened and relisted, and only closed again after further discussion, by an editor with more experience at TfD, who is prepared to review the discussion in their closing summary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion seemed to reflect a prevailing view that the template adds value to the articles in which it is transcluded, and that any merger to a more general infobox template would be highly problematic. Furthermore, there was no evident consensus for deletion/merger of the template. Therefore, I closed it as keep. The discussion had been open since March 23, so someone had to close it. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have no deadline. Not one of the commenters in the debate raised an issue of a merger (since none was proposed) being "highly problematic". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposed modification of the template was "Should be recast as a module of {{Infobox song}} and {{Infobox single}}". That sounds like a merger to me. There was no consensus for your proposal. By the way, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell#To merge has a huge backlog of mergers already. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That you clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding of the proposal you closed is all the more reason why it should be reopened. I'm not sure why you've raised the 'holding cell' red herring. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you didn't propose a straight merger, you added some sauces and pickles. The bottom line is that you proposed to incorporate the template code into {{Infobox song}} and {{Infobox single}}. There was a consensus against doing this. I bring up the backlog of mergers as one compelling reason not to add to it when a proposed merger is against consensus anyway. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
QED. I didn't propose a merger of any kind; nor did I propose to incorporate any code into either infobox. While you persist in such misrepresentation (AGF: though ignorance rather than malice), there seems to be little point in us discussing this further. I await the views of others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then your language was ambiguous. It could also mean that you proposed to rewrite the template as a wrapper for {{Infobox song}} and {{Infobox single}}. Or something else entirely. It would be helpful if you explained what you meant, rather than forcing everyone else to guess at it. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No David. In the context of an infobox, a 'module' is a small infobox or similar template such as an audio player designed to fit within a larger infobox. See, for example, the |module[2-6] parameters in Template:Infobox person. The proposal that you closed as keep was to re-work the Template:Infobox ESC entry to use it within Template:Infobox single or something similar, in such a way that it did not duplicate information. If you don't understand how a template can be a module of an infobox, you really ought not to be closing these discussions. --RexxS (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So the code from Infobox ESC entry would be incorporated, with modifications, into Infobox single to effectuate this? And when Andy said "nor did I propose to incorporate any code into either infobox" he was outright lying, trying to create the misimpression that I didn't understand his proposal, and baiting me to try to construe his words in a different way. Adding the features of Infobox ESC entry to Infobox single sounds like a flavor of merger, just as I originally described the proposed action. I'm really getting tired of Andy's smoke and mirrors. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No code would be added to either {{Infobox song}} or {{Infobox single}}at all. There would not be a single edit to either. The only template to be edited would be the nominated one. I look forward to your retraction and apology for the false slurs you have posted about me here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. Template:Infobox song and Template:Infobox single have no module parameters. This is why, in the example of modules provided above, RexxS used Template:Infobox person. Code would therefore have to be added to Infobox song and Infobox single to effectuate the module. The user could certainly pass a transclusion of Template:Infobox ESC entry into the modified templates at the point of use of course. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought they already had |module=. Very well: No code from {{Infobox ESC entry}} would be added to either {{Infobox song}} or {{Infobox single}}at all. There would not be a single edit incorporating code from {{Infobox ESC entry}}, to either. I still look forward to your retraction and apology for the false slurs you have posted about me here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When a transclusion of {{Infobox ESC entry}} is passed as a parameter to {{Infobox song}} or {{Infobox single}}, whereafter the latter templates pass {{Infobox ESC entry}} to template:infobox via a numbered data= field, is this not effectively an instruction to the mediawiki software to incorporate code from {{Infobox ESC entry}} into {{Infobox song}} or {{Infobox single}} when rendering the page? Could a process in which {{Infobox ESC entry}} is modified for use as a parameter to {{Infobox song}} or {{Infobox single}}, and the latter templates are also modified to recieve the parameter, so that, when articles are rendered, information from {{Infobox ESC entry}} appears in the infoboxes produced by {{Infobox song}} or {{Infobox single}} be described reductionisticly as a merger? Do I have to trace out the reception of the numbered data= field by Module:Infobox when {{Infobox}} invokes it before you are convinced that I really understand your proposal? In the interest of brevity I have certainly omitted some technical details, but I could say that when the transclusion of {{Infobox ESC entry}} is passed into Module:Infobox, it is recieved by the code
preprocessArgs({
{prefix = 'header'},
{prefix = 'data', depend = {'label'}},
{prefix = 'rowclass'},
{prefix = 'class'}
}, 50)
and most directly by the portion
{prefix = 'data', depend = {'label'}}
Your assumption that people must not understand what you are talking about because they have not spelled out the mechanics of your proposal in lugubrious technical detail is completely unwarranted. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
tl;dr. You've asserted that I proposed to merge templates; I did not. You have accused me of "outright lying". I did not. For the third time, I look forward to your retraction and apology for the false slurs you have posted about me here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's just no convincing you that I understand your proposal, is there? When I described it reductionisticly, you said that my description was inaccurate. When I responded with a more complete exposition of technical detail, you said "tl;dr" (too long, didn't read). If I were to describe the proposal as making {{Infobox ESC entry}} into a module, your own language, you could also say I didn't really comprehend it. Your game is rigged. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me that Andy isn't going to claim that if a modified version of Infobox ESC entry were transcluded into Infobox single to effectuate the module, this would not constitute incorporation of code. The code is substantively incorporated whether it's by transclusion or cut-and-paste. Any claim to the contrary would be a hairsplitting distinction. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a good close to me. It certainly appears to reflect the discussion that preceded it.—S MarshallT/C 11:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The consensus was to keep. The original nomination failed to explain convincingly the reasons why advantages of recasting might outweigh the disadvantages. Haranguing the participants is less likely to be effective than referring to an essay or guideline on the matter. Documentation on techniques of template development seems lacking. Thincat (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As above, please explain how you weighed up the arguments. You also appear to have overlooked the rationale for making the nominated template into a module: "so as not to repeat information on composers, lyricists, performers, etc". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For a reasonably well-attended discussion, where only one other person supports the nomination, it would be very unusual for the discussion to be closed other than for the status quo. The suggestions that the closer acted improperly or "did not act in a neutral manner, imposing his own view of the case" seems to be very bizarre indeed. Do you not see that? The rationale "so as not to repeat information on composers, lyricists, performers, etc" was clear to me and I can only suppose was clear to those at TfD. They were not convinced by the proposal. They either thought that the benefit was slight or that there might be concomitant disadvantages. Rather than demanding in green ink that people justify their actions, it might be more fruitful to explain and soothe so as to allay people's doubts. Thincat (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since you ask, I don't think it unreasonable to to consider David's response to me on his talk page (when asked how he had weighed up the arguments) "The template is frequently used (so frequently that it's template protected), and a merger would a royal pain in the posterior." an indication of him not acting in a neutral manner (not least as no merger was proposed; see above), but instead imposing his own view. Perhaps you do, but I note that the two sections after the notification about this debate, on his talk page, also feature people complaining about other instances of him acting both prematurely and out-of-process. I'm sure your views on the styling of {{Tq}} will be welcome on its talk page. I note that you have avoided my question about the arguments made during the TfD, and have instead chosen to take a quantitative approach. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will not repeat my exposition on the technical aspects of your proposal explaining why I described it reductionisticly as a merger, to which you responded "tl:dr". The reason I characterized your proposal as a "royal pain in the posterior" is that reworking {{Infobox ESC entry}} as a module of {{Infobox song}} or {{Infobox single}} would require significant and possibly manual alterations to every article in which {{Infobox ESC entry}} appears, 1365 articles in total. Moreover, while the article modifications were in progress, both the module and freestanding forms {{Infobox ESC entry}} would be in use simultaneously. The only way to avoid breaking hundreds of articles during this process would be to start a module form of {{Infobox ESC entry}} as a newly named template, apply template protection, then delete or redirect {{Infobox ESC entry}} to the new template name when the process was completed. The lugubrious nature of your proposal was doubtless a factor in the formation of a consensus against it. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your claims are, again, utter bollocks. Just as there was no proposal for a merger, there would be no need for "alterations to every article in which {{Infobox ESC entry}} appears"; no need for a new template; no need for template protection. Your claim of consensus again ignores the - highly facile - arguments made in the TfD, which do not address your imagined scenario and which you persist in ignoring. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain. When {{Infobox ESC entry}} becomes a module of {{Infobox song}} and {{Infobox single}} then every use of {{Infobox ESC entry}} would need to be converted from freestanding to an argument to the (newly minted) module= parameter of {{Infobox song}} and {{Infobox single}}. This alteration of {{Infobox ESC entry}} usage would affect every instance of the template, requiring alterations of every article in which the template appears, with the implications described above. If you don't understand your proposals, then you have no business making them. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike you, I understand the proposal fully. Your claims are false; you're talking bollocks again. when you don't understand proposals, then you have no business closing them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed not, but your repeated insistence on demonstrating that fact will. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, regardless of the merits of the argument, it's clear from that discussion that there was not only no consensus to undertake it, but an active consensus to maintain the status quo. Jumping up and down and stamping your foot about how unfair it all is won't change that, unfortunately. Lankiveil(speak to me) 12:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse The nom initially notes that the closing was one-word and wants a better explanation, and later reports "tl;dr". I infer that the initial concern is satisfied. Unscintillating (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Alberget 4A – List on AfD. This DRV discussion ended up essentially being an AfD, but in the wrong forum, and without any real structure. Reading over all of the comments here, I don't come away any sort of consensus one way or the other what to do, so I'm going to just list it on AfD and let the normal process take its course. – -- RoySmith(talk) 23:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This may be a new brand, but it is significant anyway, because it is the last in a range of beers supporting Djurgårdens IF. It is not a promotional page. There is a page about the beer on Swedish Wikipedia, sv:Alberget 4a. The user deleting the page claims the article on Swedish Wikipedia was deleted, but even if the deleted article on Swedish Wikipedia had the same name it was not about the beer but about a street address, sv:Alberget 4A. Bandy boy (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would think the best solution would be to add a few lines to Djurgårdens IF until this has gained enough coverage in reliable sources to be considered notable. Stalwart111 12:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you say there isn't enough coverage in reliable sources already? Bandy boy (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There may well be but I've had a look and couldn't find much. It would seem that a sensible suggestion would be to add some more information to Djurgårdens IF where the beer is mentioned already and then split it out into a new (less promotional) article once the volume of information justifies it. I think the only other way you're going to get a stand-alone article (having had it G11'd twice) would be to create a draft in your userspace, get it reviewed and then publish it. It was speedy deleted so realistically there is nothing anyone can do to stop you from creating a new article at Alberget 4A (it hasn't been salted). But you seem to be struggling with what to include so that it doesn't get G11'd again. DRV isn't really the right venue - I don't think anyone is going to overturn the deletion of a G11 article when it would be far simpler for you to simply create a new, less promotional one. Stalwart111 02:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't even read the article since it is deleted, have you, so how can you claim it is promotional? In what way was it promotional? It was not in any way promotional, at least not intentionally, it was just stating facts about this product. BTW, this discussion should be about if Wikipedia may have an article about Alberget 4A or not. Do you seriously suggest that I "create a draft in [my] userspace, get it reviewed and then publish it", in spite of it having been deleted? Wouldn't that be to break the rules? I am trying to do the right thing here by having the deletion formally reverted, and you suggest I should just ignore this deletion and write a new article anyway? Bandy boy (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, obviously not. But it was deleted for having been overly promotional so we can assume it was (at least in the opinion of one experienced administrator) overly promotional. But it was speedy deleted - it wasn't deleted as a result of a deletion discussion so there's no specific prejudice against recreation. As I said, DRV is probably the wrong venue because editors are unlikely to agree to overturning the G11 deletion of an article based solely on the word of the creator. Best to have another crack with a specific focus on producing an article that isn't promotional. If you want some input from others to ensure you avoid G11 again, you might consider a user-space draft. The article won't be deleted again unless it meets one of the speedy deletion criteria or is subject to a deletion discussion (WP:AFD). The article wasn't deleted "because one user found there shouldn't be any article about this thing". Nobody is saying you can't have an article - they are saying you can't have an overly promotional article. Fix that and you'll be fine. Stalwart111 08:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As Stalwart says, it would be more reasonable to try for a better article than to resurrect this one. DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How could I "try for a better article"? The article will be deleted again unless the deletion is reverted by this process, isn't that the point with this process? This deletion review is not about the way the article was written, it is about whether this product may have an article at all. Do you actually mean that I could just write a new article about this (but just without whatever it is you find to be "promotional")? I don't think so, wouldn't that be breaking the rules of Wikipedia? The article wasn't deleted because it could have been made better but because one user found there shouldn't be any article about this thing at all no matter what – or else he would have just rewritten the article, as you do on Wikipedia when you find an article with unfitting contents, or helped me do it. Bandy boy (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it was deleted for being promotional, it can be recreated as long as it isn't promotional. This isn't at all about one user saying it can't ever have an article. Promotional articles are speedy deleted, they generally don't get rewritten because that rewards the individual/company doing the spamming. But if you think it should have an article and you can write it without being promotional then go ahead and try. -DJSasso (talk)
I think going through Wikipedia:Articles for creation would be helpful. I note that Bandy boy has created several articles which have been tagged for notability concerns, or have been deleted. Our inclusion criteria is not always clear, and AfC would be able to assist Brandy boy in creating articles that do meet the criteria. SilkTork✔Tea time 08:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think explaining what was considered "promotional" in the article would help more, so this could be avoided in the future. Also, it could help if people wouldn't just tag articles for notability concerns just because they don't personally know anything about the subject. Bandy boy (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
