Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 18

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< April 17 April 19 >

April 18 edit

Template:Infobox soap character 2 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep for now, with the hope that this can be merged with Template:Infobox soap character in the near future. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox soap character 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We already have Template:Infobox soap character. All this does is add several unnecessary fields to include trivial fancruft. AniMate 22:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It's pointless having two infoboxes, especially one that encourages adding heaps of trivial things. I'm not sure about soaps around the world, but in the US birthdays are almost meaningless. I know of at least character born ten years ago who is being played by a thirty year old. AniMate 23:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ultimately I think it would be great if there could be just one infobox for all soap characters, but having a separate character infobox for UK soaps is a significant improvement over each show having its own. This box doesn't represent a case of forking, it is merging of forks that already existed. If you want to propose further consolidation, then by all means raise that discussion, but proposing deletion as if this were a new fork that suddenly appeared is a misunderstanding of the history. --RL0919 (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This box doesn't represent a case of forking, it is merging of forks that already existed" - then it is a case of forking. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep absolutely agree with aneome and RL0919 and a discussion on the template's talk page may have avoided a lengthy TFD process.GunGagdinMoan 00:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template is also used for List Of The Shak Characters and could possibly used in future pages, so in saying that is should be kept.114.76.115.29 (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As has been noted, this template is the end product of a previous deletion discussion which had been conducted merely a month ago. I cannot help but feel that this nomination is premature to say the least, and the fact that there was absolutely no attempt to engage those who use this template (as far as I can tell) which would have appraised the nominator of the situation, strikes me as extremely short-sighted. It is things like this that give WP a bad name for bureaucracy; for Yes, Minister fans out there, I fear WP could give Sir Humphrey a run for his money sometimes!!! ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 07:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "absolutely no attempt to engage those who use this template" - this is the "Templates for discussion" page; was no pointer to this discussion placed on the template? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many of the British Soaps use the family parameter effectively with this infobox, in response to a point raised above, just because American soaps don't stick to birthdates, British soaps are quite good at it. A completely unneccesary reason for deletion. Alex250P (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My apologies if I'm mistaken, but this nomination feels a little pointy. As has been mentioned by several editors above, the current template is a result of a previous TfD discussion (which officially resulted in a "keep") and, rather than forking the template further, is a merger of several forks that were in existence. It's much tidier to have 2 templates than it is to have an individual template for each and every soap. I believe this nomination is somewhat premature considering the template is relatively new and a template talk or wikiproject talk page would seem a better place to discuss concerns in the first instance, rather than going straight for an XfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice assumption of good faith. This wasn't pointy at all. I honestly wasn't aware of the previous discussion that lead to this template, and the history of the template says it has been around since 2008. AniMate 21:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amongst the vitriol and non-arguments above, the main argument against deletion may have been lost: at present, there isn't consensus on exactly how much detail is appropriate across the wide range of soap character articles. The matter of merging these templates is still subject to ongoing discussion. In the long run I'd like to see them both merged to {{infobox fictional character}}, but you can't just expect that to be resolved by a TfD. Note that I'm the one who originally merged the three separate infoboxes we had for EastEnders characters alone. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that as an argument for deletion,. After all, why bother to reach consensus on what fields should be used, when templates can be forked? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The question here is not whether or not the template will be deleted in the long run; it's whether or not it's ready for deletion in the immediate future. It'll take the existing community a while to focus on that. It is better that the discussion is conducted amicably by the wider community of editors who look after the articles these templates are attached to so that the best choices are made. So long as the discussion is going in the right direction (and it is, slowly) we'll get there in the end. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It should stay because this box is more practical. This box was created after a previous discussion, a drawn out one to say the least. The nominator probally wasn't aware of this. Also one of their points shows they want one box, with American soaps characters in mind. Everyone who chose keep has covered my views on this subject. This box has already been put into wide usage..RAIN the ONE (Talk) 20:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This template has been set up as per a recommendation made when the Neighbours and EastEnders infoboxes were nominated for deletion - we agreed that we would merge them. The box is very widely used, I think it's used for all the EastEnders and Neighbours characters so for those two alone, that is 50 years worth of characters. I actually find the second template much easier to use and understand as with the American template it seems to include sections that are completely irrelevant to non-American soaps. We are trying to improve the infoboxes but this will take time, it is not going to happen overnight. Can I also point out as well (and I apologise if I'm wrong with this but it's how it's appearing to me) that by saying that someones opinion to keep the template could be seen as a reason for deletion, that is coming across to me as people using Wikipedia to illustrate a point --5 albert square (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Pepsi NFL Rookie of the Week 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2002 Pepsi NFL Rookie of the Week (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2007 Diet Pepsi NFL Rookie of the Week (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2008 Diet Pepsi NFL Rookie of the Week (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2009 Pepsi NFL Rookie of the Week (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Rookie of the week is a form of template WP:CRUFT. Templates should be used for items of permanent notability. Rookie of the Year is an appropriate honor for templating, but not weekly honors. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Links articles by a non-defining trait. Clutter. Resolute 21:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and Resolute. -DJSasso (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:San Diego Sports Hall of Fame 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:San Diego Sports Hall of Fame (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A list article masquerading as a navbox. Indiscriminately links various athletes in random sports by a non-defining attribute. While being named to a city's local hall of fame may be noteworthy in many cases, this is a situation where a navbox is inappropriate, and serves only to clutter an article with low value links. Resolute 20:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This is template cruft. -DJSasso (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Define 'cruft'. Because you don't find this useful it merits deletion? ... Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cruft is something that is either unuseful or in this case actually hinders navigation rather than helps it. Per WP:EMBED links in navboxes should exist in a ideal version of the page they are being included on. The person who was admitted to the hall in 1956 is not going to be featured on the article of the person who was admitted in 2008. And per WP:NAVBOX the article should pass the test of where would the person who just read the article in question want to go to next. It is unlikely that someone who read the article of Shannon MacMillan would want to go to the article of a baseball player who was admitted into a local hall of fame in 1964. So this template fails both tests miserably. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No opinion It does belong in list form, but that doesn't mean this should be deleted. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've offered no argument for keeping this template. Resolute 15:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, delete it. I don't really care. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see that there is a pressing need for a given sportsperson's article to have a navbox which contains links to lots of people in entirely different fields who happen to be from the same town. It's possible to come up with an infinite number of different ways of linking people together, but not all of them need navboxes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:46, 20 April 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Football biography 3 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Football biography 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused fork of Template:Infobox football biography WOSlinker (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Latest preview software release/iTunes 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest preview software release/iTunes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apple doesn't commonly release preview versions of iTunes so its not particularly useful. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:18, 18 April 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:VNL 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VNL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is just a file link, which can be done without needed a template for it. Avicennasis @ 08:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • By the looks of the history, this was indended to be a sort of {{flag|vinland}}. If that's appropriate, it should be added the the country data infrastructure. However, with no existing transclusions, I doubt that it is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment did anyone ask the flag icon wikiproject? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unused template of unused image. If (somehow) this flag is ever needed in icon form, then it should be re-implemented per the WP:WikiProject Flag Template system. But VNL is not a standard country code so this template doesn't belong with the other Flag templates and should be deleted. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 06:58, 21 April 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Darkwing Duck 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Darkwing Duck (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Underpopulated template with only 5 links. All articles are linked in the main Darkwing Duck article. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:55, 18 April 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_18&oldid=1140183974"