Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 15

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< April 14 April 16 >

April 15 edit

Template:Greenwood Productions titleholders 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) 22:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greenwood Productions titleholders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template about the works of a non-notable (i.e. no article) pageant organiser. Advertising though the back door. The Banner talk 21:13, 15 April 2015 (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:Future Productions states 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) 22:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future Productions states (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template about the works of a non-notable (i.e. no article) pageant organiser. Advertising though the back door. The Banner talk 21:10, 15 April 2015 (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:Pageant Agency titleholders 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) 22:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pageant Agency titleholders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template about the works of a non-notable (i.e. no article) pageant organiser. Advertising though the back door. The Banner talk 21:10, 15 April 2015 (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:RPM Productions states 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) 22:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RPM Productions states (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template about the works of a non-notable (i.e. no article) pageant organiser. Advertising though the back door. The Banner talk 21:07, 15 April 2015 (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:Vanbros states 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) 22:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vanbros states (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-relevant pageant organiser getting its name out. Advertising through the back door. The Banner talk 20:32, 15 April 2015 (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:Vanbros titleholders 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) 22:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vanbros titleholders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-relevant pageant organiser getting its name out. Advertising through the back door. The Banner talk 20:30, 15 April 2015 (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.

Bollywood actors templates 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) 22:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Asin sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Abhishek Bachchan sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Kamal Haasan sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Saif Ali Khan sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Vikram sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Arjun Rampal sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Prakash Raj sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As per previous consensus with only three links which are already present within the article, these sidebars are redundant. They were just missed in the previous nominations. Cowlibob (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Stick to usual sidebar. Hajme 13:43, 22 April 2015 (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:Midland Metro stops 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) 22:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Midland Metro stops (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox station}}; I've replaced one transclusion to demonstrate. Alakzi (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why {{Infobox station}}? Why not {{Infobox GB station}}? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because {{Infobox GB station}} hasn't got a barebones usage field (discrete year - sans the footnote) and no line or services field which doesn't force the use of succession boxes. By the looks of it, it's only meant for use with mainline stations. Here's a side-by-side comparison of the three. Alakzi (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Another possibility: merge to {{Infobox Manchester Metrolink station}}. There is a parallel between the two light rail systems. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We'd have to add a switch for all things specific to Metrolink, like the header styling and the subheader. Would Midland Metro benefit from a merge with the Metrolink infobox? Alakzi (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The counter-question is "would Midland Metro benefit from a merge with the generic station infobox?", which already has dozens of parameters that are irrelevant to Midland Metro (those Korean ones, for example). Imagine a new line being built, somebody creates the articles for the stops. They copy a blank infobox - it's much less daunting to find a list of 30 or so parameters, than a list of 110+ parameters, where they might wonder what to fill in for params that are actually only present because some other station infobox was merged in. Every merge into the generic station infobox adds to the complexity of that.
    I feel that it's better not to overcomplicate infoboxes, and keep the param list reasonably short. Each system has its own little quirks, so we would naturally need to have something like |system=midland, case-insensitive, which would control the behaviour of various other params; and omitting it (or leaving it blank) would default to the same as |system=manchester, to save updating 100+ articles already using that infobox. Then, once its proven, we can look at Sheffield, Nottingham, Croydon. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first point is addressed in WP:INFOCOL; in fact, the "pro forma" copy for railway stations has got 43 parameters, and there are some more we could chuck. The Korean name parameters, plus quite a few others, aren't gonna be around for long still; see Template talk:Infobox station#Parameter purge. I'm quite averse to display switches - that sort of thing can get out of hand very quickly. I'd say {{Infobox station}} is not complex; simply, it is very long. On the other hand, infoboxes like the Metrolink one are intricate, and their maintenance can become a burden over time. Straightforward wrappers can be practical, but would that be the case here? The only functional distinction between {{Midland Metro stops}} and {{Infobox station}} is that the former's got the name and logo of the network pre-filled. Alakzi (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Redrose64: Thoughts? How should we proceed? Alakzi (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I simply don't agree with the use of {{infobox station}} as a "one size fits all" solution. I do agree that {{Midland Metro stops}} is superfluous, and I would have preferred that the relevant WikiProjects had been informed that this infobox was being considered for TFD, so that the matter might be discussed and addressed by those who actually use the template. There have certainly been no discussions at Template talk:Midland Metro stops, and I don't see any at any of the interested WikiProjects (WT:RAIL, Rapid transit, WT:STATIONS, WT:UKRAIL, WT:UKTrams or WT:WPWM). If concerns about the infobox had been expressed at its talk page, with notifications being posted to one or more of the interested WikiProjects, those WikiProjects could have looked at carrying out a rationalisation or a merger to a closely-related infobox, and perhaps a formal TFD might have been unnecessary. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with that either; I don't like the fact that we're now saddled with |pregroup= and |postgroup= - or any of the other UK-specific parameters - in {{Infobox station}}. But as {{Midland Metro stops}} now stands, it is redundant to the generic infobox. I've not got my mind set on deleting the template. Perhaps a merge would be beneficial; you're welcome to expand on that possibility, and I'll happily notify all relevant projects. If it can very briefly be demonstrated that deletion would be the wrong course of action, I'll withdraw the nomination. Alakzi (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • One problem I can see is that the replacement says 'Address' which seems like the wrong word to use, and also doesn't specify the local authority. So it's not a complete like-for-like replacement. Also what would be achieved by deleting this? G-13114 (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We could change the label to "Location", which is what it's called in most infoboxes. Also what would be achieved by deleting this? A consistent look (see principle of least astonishment) and less infoboxes to maintain. We could convert {{Midland Metro stops}} to use {{Infobox}} and Module:InfoboxImage, add microformat classes and a parameter for coordinates, and up the size of the Midland Metro link, which is below the WP:ACCESS minimum; but we could also just delete this infobox when it's so obviously redundant so we've got less infoboxes to apply the next batch of fixes to. Alakzi (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, why not convert to {{infobox}}? I did that to {{Infobox Manchester Metrolink station}}, but before causing any disruption I did announce my intentions. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What about a UK Metro station template to cover Midland Metro/Manchester/Edinburgh and any others? - X201 (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a good idea. G-13114 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been considering that for some time, ever since I converted {{Infobox Manchester Metrolink station}}. See also my comment of 23:30, 15 April 2015. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You've not explained why there might be a need for it. What "quirks" would the switch control? Alakzi (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - When every parameter is covered by an equivalent in the standard {{Infobox station}}, there is no need to have a duplicate set. You are not obliged to use every one, only the relevant parameters you need. If a new station article is created simply copy what was done before, since most of what is in the Infobox will be similar. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant; after replacement with {{Infobox station}}. There is no need for a system- (or country-) specifc template (I speak as somone in the Midland MEtro catchment area). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:50, 20 April 2015 (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:Luigi series 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) 22:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Luigi series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:Not everything needs a navbox. As Super Mario fans will know, there is no such thing as a "Luigi series" (which also makes the criteria for inclusion in this navbox subjective); this is merely a trivial and WP:crufty list of games where the character Luigi gets a prominent role.

And as anyone with video game knowledge will know, the "Mario series appearances" section is woefully incomplete as Luigi is a very major character that appears in literally every Mario game, and it would be impossible to list them all. Category:Luigi games also exists, which makes the template redundant as well. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 12:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Entire template is based on WP:OR, this is not referred to as an actual series, it's just a collection of games that feature him in varying degrees. Pretty sure they're already featured in various areas across the massive Mario franchise template too. Sergecross73 msg me 12:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make a category for the Year of Luigi, which would include any games that Nintendo verifiably linked to the Year of Luigi promotion. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 12:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely original research on the navbox grouping; a category would make more sense in addition to the Year of Luigi titles as NARH suggests. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not aware of these games ever being considered to be part of a Luigi series,--67.68.209.200 (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no need for a template like this, as there is no Luigi (sub)series to begin with. Besides, Luigi makes an appearance in so many Mario games, that having one completed is just too large, together with the regular Mario template. --Soetermans. T / C 13:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the name was based on other templates like "Yoshi series" and "Wario series". I simply felt that we had reached the point where such a template would be useful, apparently I was wrong. The last section was supposed to be for notable games (which is why I listed Mario Bros. since it is the game that introduced Luigi). SNS (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the luigi series is real it the games that luigi is the man character in! Thats like deleting the mario series because it is called "super mario bros"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:8980:4D2:E50F:EC28:E685:F8CA (talk) 07:59, 23 April 2015 (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/2015_April_15&oldid=1138533879"