Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 17

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 16 December 18 >

December 17 edit

Template:Streets of Buenos Aires, Argentina 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral on this nomination. The template was tagged for T3 ("substantial duplications of another template") in relation to {{Buenos Aires City landmarks}}, but it's definitely not: this template only has the streets, which are one of eight sections of the other, and the criterion is for when one template is a duplication of another template, not when one duplicates a section of another. This template is tiny compared to the other, linking only streets, while the other links pages as disparate as statues, the downtown, the zoo, football stadiums, an airport, and nightclubs. On one hand, it might help to have just one template, but on the other hand, someone might want a tiny template that only links the streets instead of linking all the other kinds of entities. I'd like to see consensus either in favor of deleting this one as an unneeded duplicate or in favor of retaining this because it's useful because of its smaller size. Nyttend (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The template is a duplication and it does not matter if it is a whole template or a section, as both templates will be on all street pages for no reason. One of them must go. --Gonnym (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point for opposing speedy deletion is that only actual duplications (not just duplications of purpose, as here) qualify for speedy deletion under this criterion. Of course it's appropriate to delete a duplication-of-purpose template here, as you suggest. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Functionality duplicated by the other template, so this is redundant. --woodensuperman 10:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any clue what the criterion says? Duplication, not duplication of functions. If this gets speedy deleted under such a criterion, it will be restored. Nyttend (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "Templates that are substantial duplications of another template, or hardcoded instances of another template where the same functionality could be provided by that other template, may be deleted after being tagged for seven days." And as far as substantial duplication goes, every single link in this template is included at {{Buenos Aires City landmarks}}, so there is absolutely no point to this one. --woodensuperman 15:46, 19 December 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:Simcoe County Roads 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 December 25. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:45, 25 December 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:Australasia montane grasslands and shrublands 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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only 1 transclusion, doesn't seem to provide much. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • subst then delete we do not need only 1-transclusion template Hhkohh (talk) 08:41, 23 December 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:Did you know nominations/Myrtle Brooke 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 as G6 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a. the editor will be working on this and b. there's enough sourcing to bring this up to DYK regulations. It wasn't ever listed on the nominations page, by the way. Dr Aaij (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleted with a rationale of Abandoned page with a time limit that passed a month ago. There's no point in retaining something that was abandoned and that would automatically be rejected if it got new attention. Nyttend (talk) 23:18, 17 December 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:AFC level3 leagues 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused; possibly a fork of Template:AFC third leagues Frietjes (talk) 19:00, 17 December 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:Medal "For Courage" 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 December 25. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:06, 25 December 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:Skinny Lister 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely nothing to navigate! --woodensuperman 15:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So write something. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Facepalm Are you actually being serious??? Wow!!! This is a complete misunderstanding of the entire purpose of a navbox. --woodensuperman 15:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be completely misunderstanding the purpose of a wiki. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Has a link now to one of their albums.Londonclanger (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still not sufficient to provide useful navigation, as articles are already linked. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 16:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The purpose of a navbox is to facilitate navigation between related articles. There are only two links in the navbox. Both articles link to each other so there is no need for a navbox at this time. No objection to recreation if 3 more articles are created but if that happens only actual articles should be included. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, provides insufficient navigation. Frietjes (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no navigational value. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In its current form, this goes against the first line of WP:TG, since it's just a box with text that displays Skinny Lister's bibliography on a couple of articles. Yes, it uses the navbox template, but it's not a navbox since it's not even designed to enable navigation among most of the topics that it mentions. Nyttend (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has no links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Has no links" Really? No. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:26, 19 December 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:Snooker Top 16 2011/12 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Along with - Category:Snooker rankings navigational boxes has

All for old revisions of the top 16 ranked players in Snooker. A conversation at the WikiProject suggested these were not needed. We have articles for old revisions of rankings, but the categories don't have much use.

They do exist on pages, however, these are mostly irrelevent, and add nothing to the pages they are on. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is template spam and nothhing more. The rankings change after every event and the seedings are updated about 10x per year, so these templates are very ephemeral. There is also massive redundancy too because even though the rankings change rapidly the makeup of the top 16 does not; for example, if you look at Template:Snooker Top 16 2012/13 you will see there is massive link repetition. The current ranking of each player is documented in the infobox on each player's article (see Shaun Murphy (snooker player) for example) and past rankings can be found at articles such as Snooker world rankings 2012/2013. In short these templates have no purpose: we already have lists providing the same information, and these templates have massive link repetition which is not particularly helpful. If readers want to find groups of snookers players we have categories that do this job better. Betty Logan (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two categories here: There are those that purport to be current but rarely are and those that give historical lists, simply replicating lists given elsewhere. Having these templates tucked away at the bottom of a player's page really doesn't aid navigation, there are much better way of doing this. Nigej (talk) 15:11, 17 December 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 television 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 Do not merge. Early close because there is mainly WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox television season; and Template:Infobox television episode; into Template:Infobox television. Largely overlapping templates (see table in collapsed section, below); it would be beneficial if many of the parameters that are not currently shared were to be. Merging the templates has all of the advantages listed at Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation; especially reducing the maintenance overhead, and the cognitive burden on editors.

Comparison of parameters
Parameter Infobox television Infobox television season Infobox television episode
airdate      
alt      
audio_format      
awards      
based_on      
bgcolor      
bgcolour      
budget      
camera      
caption      
celebrity_winner      
channel      
cinematography      
company      
composer      
country      
creative_director      
creator      
cust_data_1      
cust_label_1      
developer      
director      
distributor      
editor      
endtheme      
episode      
episode_list      
executive_producer      
film_end      
film_start      
first_aired      
first_run      
followed_by      
genre      
guests      
guests_title      
headercolor      
headercolour      
host      
image      
image_alt      
image_size

imagesize

     
image_upright      
italic_title      
judges      
language      
last_aired      
length      
list_episodes      
location      
module      
module1      
multi_episodes      
music      
name      
narrated      
narrator      
native_name      
network      
news_editor      
next      
next_name      
next_season      
next_series      
not_dab      
num_episodes      
num_seasons      
num_series      
num_stories      
opentheme      
photographer      
picture_format      
pre_season_qualifier      
preceded_by      
presenter      
prev      
prev_name      
prev_season      
prev_series      
producer      
production      
production_website      
production_website_title      
professional_winner      
related      
release_date      
released      
RNext      
RPrev      
RTitle      
runtime      
screenplay      
season      
season_article      
season_name      
season_number      
season_qualifier      
season_type      
series      
series_no      
show_name      
show_name_2      
starring      
story      
studio      
teleplay      
theme_music_composer      
title      
voices      
website      
website_title      
writer      

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit
  • Oppose As can be seen by the chart provided, there is a fair difference between the three infoboxes. If my math is right, only four parameters are shared between all three templates, and 23 parameters are shared by any two (out of 113, that's only 20%); "Largely overlapping templates"? I think not. This is clear enough to show that the three templates are different to each other. One is specifically for the parent article for a series, and the other two are specifically for season- and episode-specific articles. Would we be showing the next episode in the parent template, or the number of episodes overall in the season template? No. I find no basis for this proposal. I see no attempt to discuss this with the WikiProject Television first - I wonder if there is a reason for that? -- AlexTW 13:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: A lot of the non-shared parameters which are absent in the season template belong to the production, cast and crew sections. To me personally it always felt strange why |starring= was shared with season, but |judges= or |presenter= (and even |language=) weren't. And if we have crew credits such as |editor=, |director=, |cinematography= in the television template, which to me seem really out of place here as the high-level production template shouldn't care or even list all the people that participated in each episode, which could be in the dozens, then why shouldn't they be in the season template where they are even more relevant? Even |opentheme= is relevant in the season template when it could change per season - see The Leftovers (TV series) and Weeds (TV series) (which could be relevant even for the episode template as in several seasons each episode had a different person singing the theme song). So while your math might be correct, the fields themselves are not really correctly placed. --Gonnym (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • So let's examine some of the parameters that only occur in one of the three templates (As I noted in the nomination, "it would be beneficial if many of the parameters that are not currently shared were to be"): |audio_format= |based_on=, |budget=, |camera= are only in Infobox television. Why should they not be in the 'episode or 'season templates? do Television seasons not have budgets? Nor episodes? Does the format of television programmes never change between seasons? |cust_data_1 = and |cust_label_1= are only in Infobox television season. Why would we not allow these in the other two use cases? Likewise |bgcolor= and |headercolor=. The episode box alone has |award= Do seasons not or programmes in general not win awards? It has |next= and |prev=; do seasons not have predecessors and successors? Do only episodes have a |photographer=? Or a |teleplay= or |story=? Or are those in fact synonymous with |writer= in the other two templates? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • These are too many individual points to address coherently; indeed some of them may be worthy with discussion on an individual basis at WPTV. But as a general rule, we don't include things in the infobox because they exist, only when they are crucial to the topic and can be described easily. And to take one example, for |next= and |prev=, note that the season template automatically detects these values in a way that the episode template simply could not (see e.g. Community (season 2)), which is better than inputting the values manually (for data integrity). It's also obvious that we should deal with programme spin-offs or remake in a different way as they don't follow the same prev/next production pattern. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 15:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you had asked at WT:TV or the infobox talk pages we could have explained why the various parameters are not wanted in the other templates and what they actiually mean without making this discussion ridiculously lengthy. |audio_format= |based_on=, |budget= and |camera= are parameters that affect the series as a whole. They're not discussed in season lists or individual episode articles so they don't need to be in the infoboxes for those articles. Nor should they be in the infoboxes in most cases as they unnecessarily repeat information already in the main series articles. |budget= in particular is only really relevant to TV films and even then only rarely. The parameter was added when Infobox television film was merged into Infobox television after you nominated it for merging back in 2015. It was specifically mentioned in a comment that you replied to.
        • do Television seasons not have budgets? - Yes, but they are not normally revealed as they are for films. I've never seen budgets for individual seasons and episodes revealed with any authority, only guesses or in general statements that can't be tied to an individual season or episode.
        • Does the format of television programmes never change between seasons? - Yes, formats do change but they can be stable for an entire series. They are rarely if ever actually sourced in my experience, not discussed in season articles and rarely if ever discussed in episode articles. I do think I remember seeing a format discussed as an unsourced sidenote. A lot of editors don't even understand the field. Some thing that the aspect ratio is a video format. It's not.
        • |cust_data_1 = and |cust_label_1= are only in Infobox television season. Why would we not allow these in the other two use cases? - These don't actually exist and they are absolutely not required in the other infoboxes. I added these only as a necessary evil when merging a number of custom season infoboxes into Infobox television season a long time ago. They were a temporary measure used between August 2012 and December 2014 as explained in Category:Television season articles that use custom fields. The tracking code was left in the infobox so that any restorations could be noted. This was before unknown parameter tracking was added in 2016.[1]
        • Likewise - On the List of episodes (LoE) page, colour is used to differentiate between seasons because there can often be many seasons and hundreds of episodes. The content on the LoE page is transcluded from season articles so, for consistency throughout the article and to aid identification, colour is used in the season infoboxes. This is not needed in episode articles or the main series article. In fact colour was specifically removed from Infobox television a long time ago. It's not desirable to have it in either that or the episode infobox. I'm not even sure if there are any articles that use headercolor.
        • The episode box alone has |award= Do seasons not or programmes in general not win awards? - TV series can and do win many awards. It is not feasible nor appropriate to include them all in the infobox. Awards are generally given out annually and this may or not apply to a specific season. Sometimes it can be two seasons. For these reasons, awards are generally only listed in the main series article. On the other hand, individual episodes sometimes get awards but it's usually only one or two.
        • It has |next= and |prev=; do seasons not have predecessors and successors? - The season infobox can automatically calculate previous and next seasons because they are consistently named. Not all episodes have articles so the entry has to be manual. Sometimes the link is to an episode, sometimes to a season article and sometimes to the LoE page.
        • Do only episodes have a |photographer=? Or a |teleplay= or |story=? - Each episode has a teleplay or story writer and these usually differ between episodes so, in the season articles, they are listed in the individual episode entries because including them all in the infobox would be confusing and unnecessarily bloat the infobox. It's even worse for the main series article because that is about every episode.
        • Or are those in fact synonymous with |writer= in the other two templates? - Sometimes they are, often they are not.
      • The questions that you have asked indicate an alarming unfamiliarity with TV articles in general. There are some questions to which you should have known the answers as you've had involvement with them in the past. Gaining a bit of familiarity before this TfD could have saved a lot of time and the need for explanations. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm unimpressed, as will be most readers, by arguments-to-authority; but if, for example, "budgets for individual seasons and episodes [are rarely] revealed with any authority", why do we need a parameter for them in Infobox television? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm unimpressed, as will be most readers, by people who make suggestions without even attempting to understand the subject beforehand. In the first part of my post I explained why budget was present. Given that it was you who nominated Infobox television film for merging and that you participated in the discussion, you should have no problems understanding why it is included. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also Alex's figures are wrong, because he has only counted identically-named parameters as shared, ignoring those with pseudonymous names, like |module= vs. |module1= or |narrated= vs. |narrator=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose and trout Andy. The three infoboxes have reached their current state by a long series of discussions at WikiProject Television spanning years. The differences between the templates are quite substantial, as AlexTheWhovian points out; they are additionally quite important, for instance because "airdate" makes sense for an episode while "first_aired" makes sense for a season or programme. There are also a lot of details e.g. "open_theme" that would clutter up episode articles, when they almost always don't vary within a season or even programme; adding these would really dilute the important information. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 14:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "First aired" is a perfectly apt term for an individual episode. As Gonnym notes above, with examples, "|opentheme= is relevant in the season template". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should have clarified: "first_aired" is used alongside "last_aired". They refer not to when a piece of media first/last aired, but when a season or programme first aired its first episode (or part), and when it first aired its last episode (or part). This is simply nonsense for an individual episode, and including "last_aired" for an episode template would serve only to confuse editors (we don't want them to add the most recent time a repeat of the episode was broadcast). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 15:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - The three templates serve different purposes and there are fields that we certainly do not want in all templates. For the sake of brevity I'm not going to repeat what AlexTheWhovian and Bilorv has said but they are both correct and I agree with both of them. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose So right now I'm opposing this based on the reasons provided so far. However my main concern is how this would affect the recent TfD that resulted in replacing the Big Brother infoboxes with a module of {{Infobox television season}}? Currently between the three Big Brother infboxes there are about 390 articles that need to have those infoboxes replaced with the {{Infobox television season}} module. It will defeat the purpose of moving all these articles over to {{Infobox television season}} just to have to move them again so soon. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 14:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - The three templates serve different purposes, in that each covers a particular part of the article on a TV show. Infoboxes for TV programmes provide a generalised list of information about the programme, Infoboxes for Seasons cover general production information and other notable parts pertaining to a season of that programme, and Infoboxes for Episodes provide generalised information about production on an episode of a programme. Combining them all together is extremely messy, complicated, and hardly practical at all. GUtt01 (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Commenting as it seems some of the opposing reasons claiming these are different aren't entirely correct. Here is a more detailed look from my previous example:
    • Cast: While |starring= is both in the series and season templates the other cast credits, which have equal relevance are not: |presenter=, |host=, |judges=, |voices=, |narrated= (|narrator= appears in the episode template).
    • Crew: Most of the crew parameters which are included in the series template, seem way to specific for a high-level template, yet are not included in the season template, for which they are much more relevant. Additionally, most of them appear in the episode template. Included in the episode template: |director=, |producer=, |writer=, |screenplay= (called |teleplay=), |story=, |cinematography= (called |photographer=),|editor=. Other crew parameters: |news_editor= , |composer=, |creative_director=, |executive_producer=, |composer=/|theme_music_composer=.
    • Production: |company=/|studio= and |distributor= can change between seasons - see Lost (TV series) infobox. Even |picture_format= and |audio_format= change between seasons - see The Simpsons infobox.
    • Theme: Theme music (|endtheme=, |opentheme=) can change between seasons (see The Leftovers (TV series) and can also change between episodes (Weeds (TV series)) which would make this field very relevant in the season template.
    • Misc: |country=, |language=, |native_name= and |show_name_2= can be useful for all 3 templates. See most anime articles where you have several names, or reality season articles where you might have a season with a subtitle.
    • Dates: The episode template has: |airdate= ("Original air date") and |release_date= ("Original release date") vs the series and season templates which have: |first_aired=/|last_aired= and |released= ("Original release"). This is basically the same.
    • Unrelated to either template, but added to television in order to allow television films to use this template: |budget=
  • After going over all the fields it seems that besides the title fields and the chronology fields (which serve the same function but act/named differently), most of the fields can indeed be shared with valid reasons. --Gonnym (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But that doesn't make sense to combine these fields together. One issue is that quite a number of programmes have had changes in various areas such as stars and co-hosts/presenters and co-hosts, writers, producers, directors, production companies, and so forth. It would be extremely problematic to merge them all together in the same infobox.GUtt01 (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is entirely my point. Currently what you say happens is either noted in the television infobox which makes it unnessarary bloated, or doesn't get mentioned at all, which isn't better. Having this in the season/episode templates makes much more sense. --Gonnym (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, the solution is to mention it in the article's prose. Infoboxes are designed for rules, not exceptions; though indeed some shows have different closing themes for every single episode, these belong in a Production section on the episode article, rather than adding a very niche parameter for the episode infobox which will undoubtedly end up being used all over the place by well-meaning editors who don't realise that it shouldn't be used for shows which maintain the same ending theme in each episode. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Snow close and possibly move discussion to WP:PUMP or WT:TV for further comments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've noted above, there is an obvious lack of familiarity with the purpose of the fields and their use in the different templates. However, Andy's nomination has resulted in some issues being raised. We've previously tried to address some differences in the templates but some things have obviously slipped through the cracks. I do feel more discussion is needed at WT:TV in order to address these before we decide to do anything about any of the templates. Perhaps Any can provide some further input there? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed on further discussion then, I cant possibly support this merge unless the issues are dealt with first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that this needs more discussion as well to deal with the issues that have been presented here. I'm still on the oppose side however until I know how this would affect the recent decision with the whole Big Brother thing. I don't want to get a lot of these articles moved over to {{Infobox television season}} just to backtrack and redo them in a short amount of time. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 16:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not so understanding about the issues being caused by each of these Infobox templates, but I do wholeheartedly have no objections to discussions regarding them being held if it can help to improve things. GUtt01 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose: That merge idea is totally unnecessary and it's the waste of time. It's best to keep seasons and episode infoboxes separate. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per others, open to further examination and discussion on WT:TV as others have suggested. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I trust the closing admin will note the egregious canvassing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Pigsonthewing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I trust you will note WP:SNOW and WP:TROUT. -- AlexTW 23:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, and unlike you, apparently, I know what each of them says. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just asking but did you notify any Wikiprojects of this discussion? Normally it isn't a huge deal with templates, but these three are huge and a big deal to editors who use them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          Pigsonthewing, awaiting a reply to the above question. -- AlexTW 13:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Andy is correctly identifying canvassing has taken place here, not because of to whom it was said (it is customary to notify WikiProjects related to the topic of discussion), but how it was said. The message left at WT:TV is not a neutral message, which is required per WP:CANVASS. I do not, however, believe that a neutral notice there will change the result here. --Izno (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What's the intended purpose of {{infobox television}}? Is it for a program, as opposed to individual seasons or episodes? The name suggests that it would be used for models of televisions (the physical items), and without instructions on the template or in its documentation, all I can do is guess from the parameters. If all these are kept, and if I understood its purpose correctly, I'd suggest renaming to "Infobox television program" or something of the sort. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is for programs as a whole, and no, it isn't named {{Infobox television model}}. Documentation exists to tell you what the template is for and how to use it. -- AlexTW 01:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Where? Nyttend (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Nyttend, where, as in where is the template documentation? -- AlexTW 06:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, where in the documentation are we told about the kinds of articles that should use this infobox? Not what kinds of information belong in each parameter, but the classes of articles that should use the infobox. Nyttend (talk) 06:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I get what you mean. I think you're assuming most editors are stupider than they actually are. Through the example shown, in the documentation, it is extremely clear that the template is for a television series. Exactly how {{Series overview}} is for a television series and doesn't have it in the name. So no, it isn't named {{Infobox television model}}, as it very much does not suggest it is for models of television. -- AlexTW 07:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're assuming most editors are stupider than they actually are. If there is one thing that editing on Wikipedia for over 12 years has taught me, it's to never underestimate the stupidity of some Wikipedia users, GOODFAITH notwithstanding. Just when I've thought I've seen it all, someone else shows up and proves I was wrong about that again. Examples available on request. :) - BilCat (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I can definitely agree with you on that! But for the most part, editors can use logic and understand what to do. For example, to use a season infobox on a season article, or to use an episode infobox on an episode article. (Regardless, it's still snowing, just in time for the Christmas season...) -- AlexTW 08:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If nothing else, the hatnotio ad absurdum this subthread spawned at the top of the infobox documentation makes this all worth it. I'm tempted to start WP:SLOWCLAP just so I can employ it here. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per comments above. These are clearly not "Largely overlapping templates". Soaper1234 - talk 10:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. Don't start shooting about canvassing, User:Pigsonthewing. I am here because I am presently contributing to one of these pages that would be affected by such template uncertainty. I don't think that proposing a change that would impact a so large number of articles, without providing any reason better than I don't like it this way was a good move from your part. I surely will have a better use of my free time than checking where the non-broken thing entered into a broken state due to some re-programming error. Pldx1 (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would I accuse you of being canvassed, when I can point out a dishonest accusation like "proposing a change that would impact a so large number of articles, without providing any reason better than I don't like it this way"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • dishonest accusation. Whow !!! What a creative answer to the simple statement that the reasons you have given are not better than a simple "I don't like it". The templates are supposed to help the people who write articles. Having three templates for three different tasks seems to be the preferred method, as seen by the writing people. If you don't admit this simple fact, perhaps you should exert your creativity somewhere else. Pldx1 (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • For the record, the three templates are transcluded to 60,819 articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Television can go due to its similaries to the main Television Show Infobox, but we should keep the Season Infobox because of its obvious differences between the 3 (Atlantic Ranter 9705 (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose per the reasons stated above. As a long-time editor in the TV sphere here on Wikipedia, I feel like I can reasonably say that these templates are different, and while, yes, they cover similar topics (TV), they each several distinct purposes.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The three infoboxes are for three related, but different things, as evidenced by the table above, and they should stay as they are and not be merged. Strupo (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Oppose - Three separate infoboxes for three different but related, functions. Note: I came here because of the always-annoying merge notice at the top of the infobox on a television series article. Hopefully we can get rid of the ugly thing very quickly. - BilCat (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, since clearly the relevant wikiproject finds the different infoboxes helpful. If the nominator's correctly considering this an ordinary merger situation, forcing a wikiproject (the individuals who use these infoboxes more than anyone else) to change their processes sounds like more harm than the benefit gained by consolidating infoboxes. Meanwhile, I don't understand the reference to WP:AADD above: it was made in response to an argument sounding to me like WP:USEFUL, and as the whole point of infobox templates is to be useful, that's a valid argument. And don't start accusing me of being canvassed; I showed up at this page only because I brought a different template here and decided to see what else appeared on the log. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per reasons above. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Most parameters should be usable on all the templates. It is never required to use all parameters. When the parameters are unique for the whole series it should normally only be included in the series infobox, but when different in seasons or episodes, its benefitical to have them available. My support is dependent on functionalities like automatically getting next/prev season will be kept in the merged template (For example by checking for season in title). Tholme (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem a lot of people use seasons and episode infoboxes for obvious reasons and there's a lot pages that has those templates. It is beneficial that we keep season and episode infoboxes separate from infobox television. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is certainly true. We don't want every field to be available in all 60,000 articles that use these infoboxes. What we would end up seeing is a duplication of infoboxes across all articles relevant to a particular series. TV programs are not like most other topics. They can have many hundreds of episode and season articles and using the same infobox for each one would be playing with fire. The Simpsons, for example, has about 650 episode and season articles. You'd end up with most of these including information that just serves to unnecessarily bloat the infobox. We see this already, mainly with Asian TV programs, where somebody has mistakenly used infobox television in a season article. It's an insane idea to use the one infobox for all. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging all three as they do serve distinct purposes, but support sharing some more of the parameters between the templates, such as |film_end= and |film_start=. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 13:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • |film_end= and |film_start= are two parameters that probably shouldn't even be in {{Infobox television season}}. They are two more fields that I added when merging other templates. The only reason that they made it into infobox television season is that there were some uses of the other templates that had sourced dates. In the vast majority of cases, these would be unsourced. Season filming dates are rarely available from reliable sources. Individual episode dates are even more rarely announced, and by "even more rarely" I mean almost never. Series filming dates are almost worse than that and they're really trivial. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and WP:SNOW close - The only argument that could be for use, would be changing {{Infobox television}} to {{infobox television series}}, but the region issues between Season/series is confusing too. This is no different from the {{infobox video game}} and {{infobox video game series}}. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per reasons above. Grapesoda22 (✉) 17:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge but do not see any reason to work out a common backend template that all three call where the same parameters are used. --Masem (t) 19:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose according to all the users who have spoken out against this.--Philip J Fry (¿Dime quién ama de verdad?) 02:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger of Infobox television episode and Infobox television season into Infobox television. As others have pointed out, the three templates are used for distinct but related purposes. Support changing templates so that a greater number of relevant parameters are common to all three templates.Ntmamgtw (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose these infoboxes serve significantly different purposes. The functions are related but do not overlap enough to justify merging --Trödel 23:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We are at <23/1>. This gives the impression that User:Pigsonthewing waits for the 50th oppose to withdraw this proposal. Or maybe a higher degree of disapproval? Pldx1 (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As everyone said, this is the case of WP:SNOW. Make it 24/1. :)--Biografer (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per above comments. These templates serve different functions. 'Canvassing' argument in this case (notifying a WikiProject of a discussion?) is a deflection from an ill-judged nomination. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative support, but still WP:TROUT nominator: This would be such a massive overhaul that TfD is completely inappropriate for such a discussion before it is known how the parameters might be merged – we have talk pages for that purpose. And any well-established user really ought to know that, hence the trout. Modernponderer (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Alex's indepth analysis and per everyone above me - The three infoboxes all serve different purposes. –Davey2010Talk 19:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the excellent points raised by those above. The infoboxes are sufficiently different to support maintaining them as is. JimVC3 (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as others have said, each is fit for a different purpose. No need to make it complicated. --Wq639 (talk) 17:03, 23 December 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_December_17&oldid=1138373030"