Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 2

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) 04:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Buffy and Angel cast (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per

• Delete - The long-standing consensus is based partly on the argument that if we allow such navboxes to exist then some actor articles could be overwhelmed with navboxes for series' in which they appeared. These navboxes serve the same purpose as the many "[Television series] actors" categories that were deleted so they are a way of getting around previous deletion decisions. I find the arguments agains them compelling and while consensus can change I don't see that it has in the past more than four years. Ironocally, Buffy the Vampire Slayer was used as an example as to why such navboxes are unnecessary but this one escaped TfD at the time. Since the navbox contains only cast names, it is redundant to both {{
  Angelnav}} and since it contains cast names for both series, redirecting it to either one is not really an option. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Not Voting I just want to say IF you do delete it, remove it from each and every page that template is on before you hack and slash this template. Thanks. --FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 20:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There'd be no hacking and slashing and removal of the template from pages would be part of the normal deletion process. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just saying that the articles this template is currently on would look unsightly with Template:Buffy and Angel cast on them. --FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 00:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing all instances where the template is used, instead of leaving such "

red links", IS part of the normal deletion process. Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• delete per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 00:01, 3 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.

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) 04:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Petersburg Census Area, Alaska (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I wasn't sure whether this qualified for speedy, but I am sure of one thing. This entity ceased to exist approximately 16 months ago when the Petersburg Borough was incorporated, which makes this template obsolete. New boundaries are found here, here and here. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, no need to navigate by former subdivision. Frietjes (talk) 23:36, 6 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.

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) 04:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Miss Universe venues (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails

• delete, weak connection between the venues. Frietjes (talk) 23:37, 6 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.

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox theatre (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

Redundant to {{infobox building}}, with only a couple of specific parameters, which should be added to that template. Should be kept as a wrapper or, better, redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)][reply]

• Keep - not redundant to building. A theatre is a use of a building, and may not necessarily cover the life of the building itself. - Bilby (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)][reply]
  • The redundancy is not in the relationship between the subjects, but on the parameters on the two templates. Please compare them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did. There are parameters in infobox theatre which don't appear in infobox building. This makes sense, as those parameters apply to the use of a building, rather than the building itself. I had assumed from your comments in regard to infobox venue that you saw building and theatre as separate. - Bilby (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are indeed parameters in infobox theatre which don't appear in infobox building, as I acknowledged in both my nomination and below. However, there are insufficient different parameters to justify a separate infobox for theatres. Your assumption was incorrect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If there are specific parameters used by this template that need to be added to {{infobox building}} then this template is not redundant until those parameters are added. Addition of those unspecified parameters requires a separate discussion as infobox building is used on 11,831 pages. The nominator should initiate a discussion at Template talk:Infobox building, gain consensus to alter that template and then renominate this template. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We wouldn't fork a template for one or two new parameters; so nor should we keep mostly-similar templates for them. We have plenty of recent precedence of merging less- similar templates as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing that you've said here is relevant to what I said. The simple fact is that this infobox is not presently
      precedent there needs to be a discussion, with test cases to prove that these parameters are not going to affect any of the 11,831 articles that use Infobox building. For a recent precedent see this discussion where the addition of blank fields was rejected because they had not been discussed. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • What I said is extremely relevant; which is why I said it in reply to your comment. You may not agree with my point, but that does not invalidate it, nor does your example invalidate the precedent to which I referred. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • What you said was about forking templates and that's not relevant here because neither infobox is a fork of the other. Your claim that we wouldn't keep "mostly-similar templates" is not true either; there's plenty of precedent to demonstrate that. A recent example is {{Infobox Rome episode}}, which was not deleted and is now a fork of {{Infobox television episode}}. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • What I said about forking templates - which was by way of an analogy - was followed immediately by "so nor should we keep mostly-similar templates for them". (That's "should", not "would", by the way; please don't misquote me.) Your apparent sourness over {{Infobox Rome episode}} still does not negate the precedence to which I referred. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm afraid you've completely missed the point over that template. I voted to keep and it was kept. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sorry, I do not see "redundancy" with {{
  Infobox theatre}} and {{Infobox venue}}. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • You don't "see redundancy"? Have you examined the parameters in each template? When you do, you will note that {{infobox building}} has long had |seating_capacity=, specifically for this purpose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've indicated above, the infobox is not redundant yet, and will not be until parameters are added to Infobox building. What you really should have said in your nomination is "almost redundant" or "could be redundant". --AussieLegend (✉) 12:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've replied above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your reply above does not address the poor wording of your nomination. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I still oppose. Either {{
      infobox stadium}} and {{Infobox venue}} (because after all, a theatre and a stadium can be considered venues). Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Pedantic arguments around the definition of a building (The Colosseum is not a building?!?) are irrelevant. Your allegation of confusion being caused to new editors ignores my suggestion of keep the nominated template as a redirect; allowing such editors to still type {{Infobox theatre... in articles. I note that each of the articles about open air theatres which you cite refer to them being (re)built. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • He didn't mention the
          Open Air Theatre, Regent's Park, which appears to be an example of a non-building theatre. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • There you go, off at a tangent. I didn't use the Colosseum as an example (and I'm aware that, not Zzyzx11, first used it as one) because of whichever infobox it uses, but as an example of a building with no roof. As I noted, our article on the Regent's Park theatre refers to it being rebuilt. It also describes the rooms which that theatre has. Even if theatre is not considered a building, that doesn't require a separate infobox; the matter is a red herring. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • A better descriptive title for a template is a must, because it clearly defines the scope of the template to all editors. It is the primary reason why there
          infobox stadium}}. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • There is no such requirement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is also no requirement or policy that everything needs to merged either, like {{infobox park}} and {{infobox forest}}, which failed to gain consensus because basically a forest is not necessarily a park (what probably in your view is a "red herring", but viewed as a legitimate concern by others). And again, you still are avoiding making a comment on the alternative option I keep mentioning from this TFD discussion regarding merging this with {{infobox venue}} instead. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Why is this conversation even being had? Theatre is a perfectly legit infobox, it is good to have one just for theatre that is different from the generic building infobox. Neptune's Trident (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're having this conversation because the two infoboxes are very similar; the building infobox is capable of catering for all the needs of articles about theatres; and using it would allow those articles to use its other relevant features, which are not available on the current theatre infobox; and because reducing the number of similar infoboxes reduces the maintenance overhead when changes such as alt attributes or lua modules for images are introduced. And those are concrete and irrefutable reasons (indeed, note that no-one above has even attempted to counter them), unlike vague statements like "good to have". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Infobox building is not yet "capable of catering for all the needs of articles about theatres" because it is missing parameters provided by infobox theatre. You acknowledged the lack of the parameters in your nomination, effectively refuting that claim yourself. Infobox theatre contains the parameters seen to be needed for theatres; there has been no evidence presented that the additional parameters provided by infobox building would be of use by theatre articles. The maintenance argument is a specious one. There's no evidence that maintenance is an issue at all. In fact the only additional maintenance required seems to be adding |type=sidebar to your nominations.[1] But that's another issue. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Infobox building is capable of catering for all the needs of articles about theatres, with the addition of only a couple of parameters. WE do this all the time at TfD and, as noted above, "We wouldn't fork a template for one or two new parameters; so nor should we keep mostly-similar templates for them. We have plenty of recent precedence of merging less- similar templates as redundant.". I know you saw that, because you replied to it - albeit missing the point there as well. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Infobox building is capable of catering for all the needs of articles about theatres, with the addition of only a couple of parameters." - (Empphasis added) So, in its present form, Infobox building is not capable of catering for all the needs of articles about theatres, because it's missing a couple of parameters. As I said earlier (and demonstrated with links), Infobox building is used by 11,845 articles (was 11,831) so you need to get consensus at that template, after providing testcases that demonstrate these extra parameters aren't going to break anything. I know you read this because you replied to the post despite ignoring this important point. Regarding the point I supposedly missed, I have equally demonstrated above that "We wouldn't fork a template" (etc) is wrong because we've done exactly that with {{Infobox Rome episode}}, which is now a fork of {{Infobox television episode}} after a recent TfD. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Um, no. {{Infobox Rome episode}}, is not now a "fork" of {{Infobox television episode}}; it is a wrapper for it. Presumably you'd be happy, therefore, for {{Infobox theatre}} to be made a wrapper for {{Infobox building}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep its actions like this that lead to the loss of editors. Let Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre use the template they as a group decided on. Things like this take away time form our content editors. The harassment of Wikiproject lately is becoming a grave concern. -- Moxy (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't make such absurd accusations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its this type of thing that gets under peoples skins. People work hard on making things with the parameters they think fit there needs. Then because of our bureaucracy (policies that say) redundancy is not good we have problems like this - that is a perfectly good and working template is being asked to be deleted because some editor see it as redundancy because of some guideline not because there is a problem with it. Its all just common sense to let the editors involved with the topic keep the template they seefit over deleting a template they have worked on and has no problems - its causing conflict simply because of our set of rules - that deters editors new and old alike. "A recent study points to quality control rules as a reason for Wikipedia's decline in new editors" - "The main source of those problems is not mysterious. The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy " -- Moxy (talk) 18:45, 8 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.

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) 04:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Chantels (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

• Delete. A navbox may be warranted if/when articles are created for the group's charting singles; until then it seems unnecessary.  Gongshow   talk 18:35, 2 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.

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) 04:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could be one that would fall under

• Delete per nom and
  WP:NENAN - navbox does not appear needed.  Gongshow   talk 18:38, 2 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.

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) 04:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Andantes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Transcluded only in the eponymous article in which these songs and many others are already listed and linked. I don't see a need for a navbox on only the one page to specify the songs that reached number one. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 07:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - duplicates the "Chart-topping Hits" subsection of the group's page; unclear why this navbox might be helpful.  Gongshow   talk 18:39, 2 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.

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) 04:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NBA All-Star Celebrity Game MVP Award (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This award is a promotional fun award as part of

• delete, cruft. Frietjes (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per navbox cruft. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:55, 8 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.