Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 20
September 20
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) 22:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand why this was made. It sees to be the same with the other Infobox soap character despite the fact it contains fields we have rejected (species, gender, expanded relationships section, etc.) Magioladitis (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- To be honest, the "Infobox soap character 2" template highly disorganized and far too detailed. There is no sense in having so many separate categories, such as the listing of "Father" and "Mother" rather than simply "Parents." In the "Infobox soap character 3," the original soap character infobox was combined with aspects of the "Infobox character." It is much more organized, easier to read that soap character 2, and more sightly. Wren Valmont (talk)
- Nice. Then I support this one against Infobox soap character 2. We need to find a definite solution on the relations section. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- I would support a merger between the two soap character infoboxes; I would suggest that Infobox soap character 2 should adopt the format and layout of Infobox soap character 3. -- Wren Valmont (talk)
- Nice. Then I support this one against Infobox soap character 2. We need to find a definite solution on the relations section. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- To be honest, the "Infobox soap character 2" template highly disorganized and far too detailed. There is no sense in having so many separate categories, such as the listing of "Father" and "Mother" rather than simply "Parents." In the "Infobox soap character 3," the original soap character infobox was combined with aspects of the "Infobox character." It is much more organized, easier to read that soap character 2, and more sightly. Wren Valmont (talk)
- Argh. Absolutely not. The way to fix soap character infoboxes is through incremental improvement of the existing template, not yet another fork. Go and discuss the required changes on the original template's talk page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I prefer Template:Infobox soap character. There shouldn't even be a 2 or 3. Although...I'm not sure when the "Species" field was added to it. That wasn't there originally, and the characters are usually not of a different species. Flyer22 (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge. We should have one of these, not three. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as per Chris above. Nymf hideliho! 17:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- delete or merge, what's next,
{{infobox soap character 4}}? Try opening a discussion on the talk page, rather than just forking. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC) - Delete. I agree that improvements should be discussed on the existing templates' talk pages, instead of just forking. –anemoneprojectors– 13:29, 29 September 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.
- 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) 22:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
This "current squad" has essentially never been updated and probably will never be. Still reflects the situation of 2008. Kq-hit (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- delete as out of date. Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 28 September 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.
- 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) 01:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Only 1 transclusion. It's buggy too right now. I suggest subst or removal. Magioladitis (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and as redundant to {{Infobox Legislature}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:56, 22 September 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.