Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 1

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.

talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

Redundant to {{Infobox character}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/Merge to {{
  talk) 03:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: If we decide to merge/whathaveyou this, it will also be worth looking at {{
  talk) (contribs) 13:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Too many unique fields that while could be replicated in the infobox character template, it would be too much work. I would recommend, however, that we rebuild the Vg character template as a wrapper around the infobox character one that would provide the appropriate fields (like Mocap) that match to the general character template. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, err... So we gonna ignore unique field there? Both have specific function per Masem and Bellum.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 23:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not redundant to infobox character. - Bilby (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, but I'm going to
  WP:Other stuff exists, the reason being that we ought to merge the various character types simultaneously, if at all, since some characters appear to significant degrees in multiple forms of media and it'd be strange for some character articles, but not others, to get messed up until they're fixed. Tezero (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Neutral, I would be happy if we merged the various sub-templates into a single class, but I would also not like to see the whole thing drag on and stutter. This needs careful preparation and planning. However, if the movement is to keep the template, I'm fine with that too. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The "Infobox video game character" template has fields relevant to video games that "Infobox character" template lacks. That's hardly "redundant." –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Bilby and Prototime. satellizer (talk - contributions) 23:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above. Not a redundant template, no need for deletion.
  Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 00:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Blatantly false nomination Someone close it already, it's annoying. --
  talk) 08:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: There's some redundancy, yes, but there's enough uniqueness to this one to necessitate a difference from {{Template:Infobox character}}, along the same lines as User:Prototime and User:Masem. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 18:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• General reply In such cases, we usually merge any required parameters into the more generic template. In this case, the template's documentation is poor, but extra parameters seem to be: |designer=, |motion capture= and four actor parameters (all six of which could all apply to non-videogame characters); |likes=, |dislikes= (which both seem like in-universe cruft); |firstgame=, and |inuniverse=, which is for the inclusion of modules. Such few specialised parameters do not justify a separate template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no "|likes=, |dislikes=". Stop imagining things. There is only:| name = | series =| image = | caption = |firstappearance = (useful in the cases such as
    talk) 20:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Before you accuse me, falsely, of imagining things, perhaps you could have a look at the code and/ or documentation of {{Infobox video game character}}. What, do you think, are parameters numbered (in the code) 10 and 11? As with all optional templates in all infoboxes, parameters in {{Infobox_character}} need not be used in cases where they do not apply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually looking at the history, someone who is now indef blocked just over a month ago added such parameters without documenting them [1]. FunPika 10:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : Reason :- This template has meaningful modules. And i also strongly oppose this nomination TheBlackSnow (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Has at least four distinct fields from the general character infobox. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The VG template serves a distinct purpose; there's nothing "redundant" about it at all. This nomination is farcical.
  ^{• spill it •} 23:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - I don't really see any reason for it to be removed/merged. As a side note, I'd like to see |lastappearance= and |lastgame= as parameters, though I realise there is also reason to exclude them. --
  talk to me
  )

It's actually a pretty good idea. --

talk) 15:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Snow Keep The unique fields separate the two. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is it not closed yet --
  talk) 17:29, 9 May 2014 (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.