Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 8

< September 7	September 9 >

September 8 edit

Template:Word/Void_books 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 page.

The result of the debate was *poof* (delete) // Pilotguy (Have your say) 17:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is now redundant - all material that used to link now uses Template:Shannara books --Patstuart 16:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Shannara template with Word/Void and Great Wars included is all that's needed, and makes the chronology obvious. Sraan 20:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Pastuart and Sraan are quite right. Noneofyourbusiness 20:05, 15 September 2006 (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 page.

More country infoboxes 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete // Pilotguy (Have your say) 17:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single use infoboxes. Should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion, this one, this one and this one. Some of these template also have fair use image violations. The relevant articles now use Template:Infobox Country or have the code inline, in line with current wikiprojects. --Bob 16:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. ^Blank ^Verse 20:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and as the creator of the Vatican infobox. MJCdetroit 12:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 13:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all including addition. Cain Mosni 22:25, 13 September 2006 (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 page.

Template:Sustainability and energy development group 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensous it seems, so will leave this one alone this time and fall on to keep. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 17:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just too huge. Not a useful navigational aid anymore. Delete or Portalize. --Pjacobi 08:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Article of its own. Delete as absurdity. Pavel Vozenilek 03:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an option to split it in 7 templates ? Mion 10:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What for? Is Windcatcher feature of sustainability? The template presents messy and sometimes absurd way to define the term. Pavel Vozenilek 11:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cleaning up is included, its typicall a needed template which gets past its meaning by to much the contributions, it should be on the list : templates for splitting instead for deletion. Mion 11:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, way too large. Topic templates should contain articles that are interrelated; these topics are not so. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke!. The template needs to be converted to a list or portal. Personal opinion: Any template with over two dozen links should be a candidate for speedy deletion. ^Blank ^Verse 20:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Split up, turn into categories, and portalise or just delete. Yes, quite an unwieldy template. The sections should be used as categories if they're not already. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 01:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is an unweildy template but it contains some useful information and links. Portalise would be my preference with categorisation. --Alex 08:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or portalize, it is a helpful navigation guide, though some of the content could be trimmed. Skyemoor 11:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Portalize", this is a fairly useful ammalgamation of links on the topic.--gozar 23:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Split up into 7 templates, one for each section, with an index to the severn sections appearing in each template to allow broader navigation. --Salix alba (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A Portal would also be useful in addition. Gralo 13:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portalise The collection of links could be useful, and the subject is worthwhile, but the template is far too big. --ais523 11:01, 12 September 2006 (U T C)
Split up and/or portalize. It is about time something was done with this template. It is just too big. -- Kjkolb 08:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
. Portalise and categorisation. Mion 09:13, 15 September 2006 (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 page.

}

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 page.

The result of the debate was Keep. WP:SNOW. kingboyk 10:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Guitarist infobox edit

Another bloated bio box, delete. Peta 06:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the box was created by Admin Aguerriero for use by the WikiProject Guitarists as previous musician infoboxes were poor and of no use to the project.
Keep, no meaningful reason for deletion has been given. There's nothing wrong with infoboxes, in general; and they're usually not inserted if the regular editors of an article object. Kirill Lokshin 11:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Strong Keep, per Kirill. The infobox has been used for many articles for quite some time and it is considered very effective with enough information. Probably someone could explain "bloated bio box"? Cheers -- Imoeng 12:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Kirill. Infoboxes are used in many articles. What is the problem with this particular one? Dubc0724 13:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It should be obvious that this template is part of a very active WikiProject, and that discussion and consensus have been used as development tools. The template is used in an manner consistent and appropriate with other WikiProjects. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Kirill. Rotring 15:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Kirill. If you have something against infoboxes, nominating them for deletion isn't the thing to do. --Ortzinator 15:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no bloat in this bio box. Rohirok 16:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this infobox has been used on a vast number of articles and many days and hours have been spent on trying to make the box practical, efficient and attractive. To simply delete the box for an invalid reason is an insult to the countless editors who have worked on the template and to the goodwill spirit and camaraderie that is wikipedia. - Patman2648 19:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is one of the vital points of a major project. - 75pickup (talk · contribs)
Strong Keep - Extremely useful and appropriate. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 20:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is a really useful infobox and provides all the necessary information. QelDroma06 20:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I'm shocked an administrator would even do this. For shame, Pet. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It is important and too bloated is weak argument to delete. --My old username 21:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep. There is no reason for it to be deleted. DavidJJJ 12:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, as per above. - Deathrocker 13:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't believe this is up for deletion. Bretonbanquet 17:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful and hardly bloated. --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It's not "bloated", and it works fine. --Angelo 21:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, it helps clean up guitarist bio pages, and as per above. -- Reaper X 22:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Very useful. Also, I'm shocked that this up for deletion,--Happycat93 04:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. In use, well done, and not bloated. --Hector 04:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. As many have stated above, it's extremely useful. PJM 04:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I can see no evidence for this template being a problem.bunix 10:27, 10 September 2006 (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 page.

Template:Islamic architecture 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete // Pilotguy (Have your say) 17:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, It was a user box, but was moved and all transcoded links have been manually edited to match. No further transcoded links. DemosDemon ^{(Talk - contrib)} 06:39, 8 September 2006 (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 page.

Template:Universities in South Australia 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 page.

The result of the debate was keep // Pilotguy (Have your say) 17:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant subset of {{Australian universities}}. Peta 05:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearer than {{Australian universities}}, which was created long afterwards. These sorts of templates (universities by state) are widespread in North American articles too (eg, {{BC Uni}}).--cj | talk 10:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many more universities in a US state.--Peta 00:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - somewhat irrelevent. It is still a useful categorisation. Cain Mosni 18:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inclined to suggest that it it's a currently redundant subset, then perhaps the appropriate articles should be re-categorised to use it. Cain Mosni 18:36, 14 September 2006 (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 page.

Template:Universities in Western Australia 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 page.

The result of the debate was keep // Pilotguy (Have your say) 17:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant subset of {{Australian universities}}. Peta 05:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Useful for readers wishing to navigate among the articles for Western Australian universities. This is difficult to do within {{Australian universities}}, because with the exception of the University of Western Australia the names of the universities in WA do not reveal their location (for example, Curtin, Edith Cowan, Murdoch, Notre Dame). - Gobeirne 19:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inclined to suggest that it it's a currently redundant subset, then perhaps the appropriate articles should be re-categorised to use it. Cain Mosni 18:36, 14 September 2006 (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 page.

Template:Infobox Scientist 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 page.

The result of the debate was YIKES! no consensous. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 17:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please click on [1] to vote on which template fields to retain or remove.bunix 10:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This massive template is long enough to remove the need to write the text of the article (I mean its too much info and over-cluttered). Many people don't like the Template:Infobox Biography, this is taking it way too far. Delete Peta 04:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep . it provides quicker access to trivial information about the scientist. Steiger 04:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abridge, It has enough information to degrade from the actual written part of the article, but it should only have the most basic information, so I guess it's more of a delete than a keep. Djsonik 02:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete. Let us write an encyclopedia, not a Infoboxipedia. --Pjacobi 08:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – but hasn't the horse already bolted, infoboxes are pervasive? Shouldn't here be wider discussion about there desirability? Saltmarsh 14:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yes, but do it at Wikipedia talk:Infobox. — Dunc|☺ 15:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Replace with Template:Infobox Biography. As I've been trying to explain to Bunzil (talk · contribs) non-standard formatting violates the KISS principle and a wiki's simple database structure is totally unsuited to holding data in this manner (unlike say NNDB). It's far too large and contains elements for pointless trivia such as handedness, and other things such as list of children, grad students that can get far too bloated to be effective. — Dunc|☺ 15:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Would be handy if Dunc pointed us to a wiki policy page that explains his technical point about database structures. And if that is the case why has the wikipedia have literally thousands of infoboxes? Why has it not been stopped centrally if it is so detrimental? Why does the wiki markup code allow for infoboxes? Why are we talking about a general infobox problem, in a specific TfD? If there are answers, please take it to the talk page. bunix 15:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jim62sch 15:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either remove all of the trivia (handedness, Erdos number) or delete as most of the information is either non-essential or should be able to be found in the text of the article itself for those who really care about it. --Fastfission 16:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dislike of infoboxes is no reason to delete this template. Also it is a hard piece of work to move the table info into the text of all transcluding articles (I assume substing is not wanted here as it seems to be the box that is disliked by the deleters). Please remove the use of this template from articles first then relists again for TfD. This ensures that there is consensus on the articles for removing the box. The template is not the problem. --Ligulem 18:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I assume the deleters will work moving the info contained in the box into the article text. If not, their vote here is meaningless. Simply removing information from articles is not acceptable. So if this TfD passes as "delete" then it will go to the orphan cell below until all info has been converted into the articles. This template will not be deleted until this has been done. Killing info from articles via TfD is not acceptable. So I expect the deleters to then do their work on the articles. --Ligulem 09:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Apart from silly additions like Erdos number, the information in the infobox is completely redundant, with the excecption of born in and died in which should go into the very first sentence. --Pjacobi 09:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response. By definition an infobox provides a summary of key items in an article. By definition a summary is a form of redundancy. So of course there is redundancy and that's what all infoboxes do. They are a form of navigation aid. However, this TfD is not the proper medium for expressing general dislike of infoboxes. Please take it to the Village Pump.bunix 13:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Strong Keep. This box has been used for some time and is already accepted in over 100 articles. It summarises useful information relevant to current scientific biographical culture. In terms of structure it is no different to the "Guitarist infobox" (see above) and is consistent with many other templates on the Wikipedia. All the same arguments (above) for keeping "Guitarist infobox" apply here also. No meaningful reason for deletion has been given. In general, there is nothing wrong with infoboxes and they are inserted by consensus on an article-by-article basis. bunix 23:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. And it's you who's been adding it. When someone doesn't like it you then insist on it being added. — Dunc|☺ 20:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. The "someone" was you :-) Firstly, the number of editors propagating it has been rapidly growing. Secondly, out of the ones I personally propagated, about 6-7 instances were all deleted by you only. I reinstated them via polite reasoning and via your ultimate consent. Check the history if you have forgotten. bunix 21:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. It really looks bad. For instance, take a look at Henri Becquerel. Now compare it to the equivalent article on the German wiki, de:Henri Becquerel. See how much better the German article looks? The layout of the English article is just horrible, and that is caused by the infobox, and the Nobel Prize in Physics: Laureates template as well. Just about every single article that has that infobox and/or template imposed on it looks bad; take this one for instance: Pieter Zeeman, and on it goes. Please delete JdH 02:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Those template transclusions were being used incorrectly. Someone had put text in the unused variable slots ("<insert please>", or something to that effect), which made it look silly. I've removed that. Omphaloscope talk 04:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I am pointing out is that the layout of the article as a whole looks silly; changing the content of the box doesn't fix that.
There is still another issue, and that is: how trustworthy the information in the box? I have already stumbled over several instances of mis-information, such as the wrong students or doctoral advisors. It appears that people who are putting in those boxes feel obliged to fill out as much as possible of the template, and don't take the trouble to double check and verify the information that goes into it. JdH 08:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you simply edit Henri Becquerel then and remove the box there? I don't see what's the point in putting the template on TfD if it is the content of the articles that you want to change. Just change the articles, and if the template is orphanned, we can deprecate or deleted it. TfD-ing the template when there is (not yet) consensus on the articles to remove the boxes from articles is the wrong way to go. --Ligulem 08:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. JdH's argument about having to correct "misinformation" applies to entire wiki articles and not just infoboxes. That is what we are all here for: to collaboratively fix stuff. bunix 13:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did take a look at the Henri Becquerel article with and without the infobox. There was not much difference. Part of the reason that the German article looks better is that it is longer. Part of the reason that the English article looked fragmented was the placing of a photo (uranium salt exposure) on the left side on a too-short article. I agree that the size of the Noble template (and most picture templates) is too large. Bejnar 16:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Offers a quick summary of important info - unless a better format is proposed, the infobox should stay. Brisvegas 03:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is already a better way of doing this: The information that is in the box goes in the very first sentence of the article, and in a paragraph of the biography. Same information, and the layout is far superior. JdH 08:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. JdH's point about putting infobox material at the begining of an article applies to very many infoboxes and not just this one. Do we do away with them all? Surely such discussion is inappropriate here and not focussed on the specifics of this case. bunix 13:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you don't like them, be bold and replace them individually, rather than forcing others to do it by deleting the template. If you truly hate the template, we can consider it "deprecated" (à la HTML). This means "don't use it in the future, but still parse it." Otherwise we lose a lot of valuable information and waste a lot of time that could be spent being constructive. Omphaloscope talk 04:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Furthermore, I agree with User:Bunzil above: the consensus of Wikipedians who have continued to insert and maintain these infoboxes is clear. Omphaloscope talk 04:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete, please don't reduce the work of a life to a standardized coffin !Channer 07:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This argument applies to all bio infoboxes. Executive summaries are useful. Those that don't like them can easily ignore the box and read the article. bunix 12:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Noted w/ Omphaloscope that you can remove items individually you don't like. Thesis advisors, Influences especially good here. --Blainster 10:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or remove the the trivia. We should not be encouraging trivial information like handedness and Erdos number to be featured prominently at the top of articles. I would prefer replace this with the standard biography infobox. Everything else really important should be in the introduction, everything somewhat important should be elsewhere in the article and not at the top.--ragesoss 13:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I find it ironic that the guitarist infobox does not included handedness while this one did. Handedness and Erdos number have now been removed (as a start at cleanup), though I still prefer to replace the use of this template with the basic biography infobox.--ragesoss 17:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Cute observation. However, handedness does not affect guitar performance. In fact, one of the greatest guitarists, Django Reinhardt, had fingers missing and he was still a virtuoso. In contrast, there are theories linking left-handedness with mathematical ability etc [2] and hence the popular interest in knowing the handedness of scientists. bunix 23:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Handedness is trivia not infobox material. I agree it might be interesting but lets keep it to the prose section, if at all. David D. (Talk) 18:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Too much detailed resulted in simplifying historical reality.--Valérie75 17:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peta & Dunc. Guettarda 18:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This (and several other things) appear to be an effort to make Wikipedia into a database, in this case a database of people. While organizing some basic personal information is important, a personal DB effort is not; it should be done in another Wiki project (from which Wikipedia could draw). Studerby 00:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peta, Dunc, Studerby. The standard bio template is far superior. JoshuaZ 00:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Adds nothing to the articles it is in. Use the normal bio template if you must. Borisblue 03:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assumes cookie cutter form of scientist. Looks like taken from some database. Pavel Vozenilek 03:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & all the other reasons given above :-) Vsmith 03:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question. So why do you last 7 editors think this should be deleted as opposed to the "guitar infobox" (above)? What is the difference? Please discuss your reasons more fully on the talk page. Is there any real difference between the Scientist Infobox and these: [3], [4] and [5]? bunix 04:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a dyslexic person I find it easier to interpreate information when it is presented in a visual manner. I generally find large blocks of text hard to read, the info box makes it easy for me to find the important points. For me infoboxes are a question of making wikipedia more accessable to a range of Learning styles. I agree that some of the fields included are friviolous, Erdo number has bother me for some time, it essentially measures whether people worked in the same field and at the same time as Erdo, it is a mathematical joke not convaying usful information. Why not have a Poincaré number or Newton number? --Salix alba (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Whilst it is true that Erdos Number started off a bit tongue-in-cheek, it is now serious and has gained respectability via the emergence of the theory of small-world networks. See [6]. We could have an "Isaac Newton number" as you suggest, but everything is referenced to Erdos Numbers by convention....just like the freezing point of water is zero centigrade by pure convention. bunix 11:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Yes the concept of Erdos number does have significance, however the theory of small world networks talks about degrees of seperation between two people chosen randomly. The fact that Kevin Bacon and Erdos were chosen as base points is a mear historical accident. Quoteing these numbers goes entirely against the whole small world hypothesis, asserting undue importance to two particular nodes. If we wanted to seriously measure some statistics of small world phenomena then a better indication would be the number of co-authors, or possibly a count of citations. --Salix alba (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response. In small-world network theory you can use any hub. That's the point. Erdos is a hub. However, (i) the discussion is kinda redundant here as someone has already scrubbed Erdos from the template, and (ii) let's take this discussion to the talk page if you want to continue. bunix 21:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think most people are suggesting that an infobox is not appropriate for scientists. The problem is that this particular infobox is poorly thought out and there are other more simple options available. David D. (Talk) 18:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If an infobox contains too many fields, delete some of the fields. There's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. --kingboyk 10:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once the fields are deleted is this infobox significantly different to the biography one? David D. (Talk) 18:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People don't fit in infoboxes. Fredrik Johansson 12:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. Keep — Most educational resources recognize the value of providing information with layers of detail. For a straightforward brushing-over of events and important details, you can read the infobox. For a more rigorous explanation of who this scientist is, you can read the article. Omphaloscope talk 17:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Infoboxes are for a succinct summary of relevant facts. Such information as the scientist's spouse, children, or religion don't belong, and even their doctoral advisor and students aren't relevant enough unless they are themselves quite notable.
- Response. See Laurascudder's comment below. Do you mean delete the unimportant details? That's fine. But keep the infobox. Omphaloscope talk 17:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rework as to contain only essential information. "birth_date, birth_place, death_date, death_place" condensed to just "born, died", "residence" is irrelevant, everything from "alma_mater" down is to be in the article not the infobox, except "website". —Rotring 14:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See the talk page for a discussion on what constitutes biographically important data.bunix 15:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, there are alot of scientists and it is a very important field needing an infobox to properly explain some of it. 75pickup (talk · contribs)
Strong delete and replace with Template:Infobox Biography. An open and inclusive community ought to make it easy for newbies to create good-quality pages: having separate biography templates for different fields of notability is not helpful, and is only justifiable in sports biographies where it is worth noting current teams etc.. - Stevecov 14:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are many varieties of people template already in use such as [7], [8], and [9]. Newbies are quite capable of embracing variety :-) bunix 15:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Sports players : teams :: scientists : institutions/fields. Stick to one standard please.

Update. There are presently 14 types of people template officially listed at [10]. Are you proposing to replace them all with Template:Infobox Biography? If not, then please focus your arguments specifically to the template in question and state what sets this template apart from the others. No one voting for "delete" has clearly addressed this as yet. bunix 23:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there are too many infoboxes in wikipedia is not a good reason too add even more. Should we go and delete the others too? Well may be, especially if the deletion of this one sets a precedent. David D. (Talk) 18:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abridge or Delete. A scientist infobox template is not a bad idea, but it should have perhaps 8 fields to fill in, not 20. Wachholder0 20:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Please note that this template has just been abridged a day ago. See talk page.bunix 23:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I like the ability to list advisors or notable students. Some of the fields are extraneous, but that's something to resolve by editing the template, not deleting it. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's very useful. --Bender235 17:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On "strong keep" and "strong delete": If your argument is strong, then the people reading it will know that. The words "keep" and "delete" are just there so we can all keep track of the arguments more easily. It hardly matters whether you really-really, table-poundingly believe in your own opinion. Omphaloscope talk 17:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The consise informational display is useful. A special infobox for scientists is needed. - Bevo 19:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd like to have the option of using this info box. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme delete!. Spouse, children, religion, doctoral students, ad nauseam. I'm surprised that there are not tags for blood type, height, or eye color. ^Blank ^Verse 21:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response. See talk page for discussion of spouse & children. Same argument applies to other extant fields. Does not apply to blood type etc....when you buy a biography in a bookstore you get details on the spouse but not on the bloodtype.bunix 21:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep As a complete outsider to the subject, I found it an extremely useful summary of basic points without having to plough into the text. Tyrenius 21:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim irrelevant data -- this should be worked out on an article by article basis. Sounds like people are opposed to infoboxes in general and not to this one in particular. I find them very useful and user-friendly. --plange 23:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Abridge It's very useful but is slightly bloated. - Patman2648 23:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It's useful & those who don't like it can argue for its non-inclusion on an article by article basis. It's silly to override article-level consensus with a Procrustean wiki-wide policy. Let's overcome the need to dictate. Mikker ^(...) 00:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a load of old rubbish. Why do we need to know how many children they have, the name of their spouse or their religion? How is this sort of intrusive information relevant or appropriate? There're a lot of completelly irrelevant sections on this template. And what's a strong keep? It's still only one vote, you can't nuance it, it doesn't count double if you write strong in front. Alun 05:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See talk page for discussion on spouse, children etc and their raison d'être.bunix 08:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep it provides quicker access to trivial information about the scientist.Mion 05:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Informative, parts not redundant with existing biography templates. --Kjoonlee 09:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see individual TfDs as a good place to debate infoboxes in general. So to me the question for this TfD is should there be a separate infobox for scientists when there's already a general bio infobox? While this infobox could certainly do with some work, I think the principle is sound. People notable for their scientific achievements will generally have some different characteristics or achievements that should be highlighted compared to someone famous for, say, their political accomplishments.--Siobhan Hansa 11:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per Steiger and others, makes important information quickly and easily accessible without having to go through the entire article. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 15:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found it very useful in the Roger Penrose article and it is good to find all this information together. It needs some tidying up but certainly should be kept.Billlion 20:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alert. Starting from when this TfD voting phase began, Pjacobi and his suspected sockpuppet 12.74.162.102, see [11], have been deleting Infobox Scientist from articles without waiting to hear the consensus from this TfD process or without obtaining consensus from the talk pages of the said articles. There have been about 15 deletes and the count is rising. Is there an admin out there who can mediate? bunix 22:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even if there is no consensus to delete the infobox, it will not be mandatory to use it. --Pjacobi 09:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Deleting them en masse mechanically without discussion on the corresponding pages is questionable considering the amount of consentual support they already have. Also deletions while these discussions are on is of questionable wikiquette....the supporters have not been adding templates during this discussion. Military action during negotiations is a no-no, for want of a better analogy :-) bunix 10:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning. It appears that Pjacobi is still continuing a mass delete of these infoboxes. Doing this in the middle of a TfD discussion is somewhat underhanded...this is because removal of the template removes the TfD announcement tag from those pages. This therefore undermines the TfD process, and hides it from those editors who did not see the pages earlier. It is tantamount to deleting the TfD tag. Please can an admin look into this violation and revert the boxes so that the TfD tags properly appear on those pages that are affected. bunix 13:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Anyone can delete information from it which seem to be unnecessary and put it back into the articel itself, but the infobox itself should not be deleted. It has to inclued the basic information from the bio - Serinde 06:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please use normal prose for articles. Up+land 07:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Again, this TfD is not the appropriate arena to present arguments that apply to all infoboxes. This is not a good use of TfD. General dislike of infoboxes needs to be taken up on the appropriate Village Pump pages. bunix 10:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being able to find out someone's doctoral supervisor at a glance is useful. The template can also help with writing articles as it encourages editors to look up such facts. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to remove clutter and encourage prose. Kusma (討論) 15:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep While overdone infoboxes can be intrusive, many of them provide a nice balance to the introduction of an article. Of course they are duplicative. While an infobox may not add anything that isn't elsewhere in the article, it does give a handy checklist for people who like that sort of thing. If you are looking for a particular piece of information about several scientists, using the infoboxes is very handy. Some people derive information better from the flow of text, others prefer a tabular presentation. Let us not unfairly discriminate against the tabular folk, just because we are 'texties'. Bejnar 15:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete or abridge. It is definitely too long. i can see the attraction of of a few extra fields that are specific to a scientist, however, it might be better to add these as non-required fields in the bio infobox. David D. (Talk) 18:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is a useful to be able to quickly navigate Doctoral Advisors / Students via a standard template, rather than having to search for the information within the text. Looking at the full template, I think that several fields could be safely removed (spouse, children, religion, for example). Instead of being deleted, I'd suggest expanding the scope of the template to one for all academics. Bluap 19:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.That is actually one more reason to speedily delete it: Students should learn early how to read articles, and to extract relevant information. It is a mistake to present it to them in little bitesize pieces, ready to be swallowed; that way you deny them the opportunity to learn how to search for information and interpret it. It is the skills that count; that it far more important than the information as such. JdH 20:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response. We are here to provide content to the public. If the public concensus wants bitsized pieces, then we cannot dictate how they should swallow. The wikipedia is not about improving poelple's skills, but providing content to broad public base of all ages with a spread of learning skills (including dyslexics for example) and in that context if an infobox is a popular navigational aid then we provide it for the masses. bunix 21:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Response I'm not talking about using the template the summarise information, but as a standardised method to navigate between students and doctoral advisers. As a navigational aid, this template could be very useful. Bluap 14:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trim it down. It has obviously gotten out of control, but I do not see a reason to delete it instead of making it a suitable length. -- Kjkolb 08:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand as necessary. Let individual users decide which fields of the template are relevant for the subject to which the template is being applied. Infoboxes allow quick comparisons between different subjects, reduce "hunt time" for the end user. And there is another important application. In the future, Wikipedia will be increasingly read not by humans but by machines. Organizing information in a format easily readable by machines, rather than keeping it locked up in sometimes-unparsable prose, will be an advantage for Wikipedia. Robert K S 13:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The machine readability sounds more like an argument to expand {{Persondata}} than this one. Kusma (討論) 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to delete it, and it provides some nice info.--Karafias 19:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alert. It appears that during this TfD process user JdH has gone on a deletion spree and has mechanically removed this template from a further 20 articles. (Together with Pjacobi's deletion this amounts to 40 template removals in total). This is of some concern because (a) it was done without consensus, (b) it was done without discussion in the talk pages of the affected articles, and (c) it removes the TfD tag from visibility in those articles, thus biasing this TfD process. I am presently trying to politely negotiate with JdH, see [12]. bunix 10:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's better than it was, and is useful, much more so than Template:Infobox Biography. Michael Kinyon 17:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Infoboxes serve as very useful executive summaries; on the one hand, help occasional browsing users realize if this is even the article they're looking for, and on the other hand, it is a standard place for important information that often doesn't find its place in the article prose (e.g., graduate students of note). 87.69.85.85 20:35, 14 September 2006 (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 page.

Template:CURRENTHOUR 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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete for the reasons described below, and because it's no longer accessible anyway. —freak(talk) 21:20, Sep. 8, 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I ask after decision on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 27, but there's a magic word "CURRENTHOUR", listed on meta. I think this template should be moved to Template:Currenthour like in meta and delete Template:CURRENTHOUR after it. っ 03:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't move. There's no point in keeping this arround. CURRENTHOUR is a keyword that gives the exact minute at time of parsing. A separate template that adds no extra value is just confusing to new users and an unnecessary maintenance hog. sebmol 06:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A bit confused as this was just listed a week ago but seemingly not listed as a magic word yet. Now it is... though 'CURRENTMINUTE' still seems to be MIA. Agree there is no reason to keep this around in any form now. The new magic word and (actually shorter) {{#time: H}} parserfunction both provide exactly the same info. --CBD 10:34, 8 September 2006 (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 page.

Template:Myst fiction 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensous. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 17:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template says it all, "Fictional details from the Myst franchise follow, and may sometimes be referred to as facts." The wikipedia is an encyclopedia about the real world, as such we don't treat fiction as fact. Mitaphane _talk 01:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, It's just bad wording, but the template is still unnecessary. --Ortzinator 15:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Cyan Worlds narrates and describes all places, persons, and events related to the myst franchise as historical events, not fiction. This template helps prevent confusion among those unfamilliar with this fact. Carterhawk 02:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Many fictional universes with continuity do that. The purpose of a Wikipedia article is to make clear the distinction between the real world and a fictional one by providing sufficient context. — TKD::Talk 03:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, like the Kayfabe disclaimer, all it does is encourage bad writing which fails to distinguish fact from fiction. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Articles in which the distinction betwen fact and fiction is not clear should be tagged for cleanup with {{in-universe}}. This template conveys a notion that the ambiguity is unavoidable, whereas we have several featured articles on fiction that exemplify how to give enough information about the fictional universe from a real-world perspective. — TKD::Talk 03:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I can't figure a way to "clean up" the articles (as TDK suggests) other than adding "In the context of the game-universe" to every single paragraph.Cactus Wren 08:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not necessarily the way to do it. Usually, in-universe perspective is permitted in plot sections, provided that those sections are clearly marked as such and that there is sufficient real-world context surrounding those sections. One way to provide this context is to ensure that the readers know which game in the series is being referred to (or which game a fictional element first appeared in). Another way is to include what the developers were doing or hoping to accomplish. WP:WAF has a list of examples of articles that follow this guideline. — TKD::Talk 15:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's much easier to just leave it as it is than to go and edit every page pertaining to Myst just because it poses a "possible" confliction with existing standards. Myst is always referred to as being real. No other game have I seen that referres to itself with such a sense of realism. There can be no definition of fact or fiction here because it is all fact in the eyes of many people. This template help anyone not familiar with the games know that what they are seeing is from an "In Character" Point of View. I think it would be easier to leave it as it is. - Paradox22
- note: User:Paradox22 has zero edits outside own userpage. Catherine breillat 23:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - See also: Ad hominem. Camann 19:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - See also: WP:SPA --Mitaphane _talk 22:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article should make clear what is fiction and what is not, without the template. By the way, the above comment was actually left by 66.183.129.56; please sign in if you are really User:Paradox22. — TKD::Talk 15:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WAF. Place {{in-universe}} as a cleanup tag on all articles that use this template until fixed. -- Ned Scott 16:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template seems to validate large swaths of in-universe prose.--ragesoss 16:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: MYST is a defining part of video game history. Wikipedia mentions works of fiction such as literature, and so the video game's content's should be no different. Furthermore, to keep the articles intact and take out the disclaimer template and have the articles written again would be time consuming and tedious to read, as the author would be constantly saying "According to the game..." or something to that effect. One of the immersive qualities of the video game is that it acts like it really happened, so to have disclaimers in every sentence would be illusion breaking. Wikipedia readers are smart enough to know that something in a video game like that is fiction. --LegoAddict 4:57pm, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- note: User:LegoAddict has zero edits outside this TFD. Catherine breillat 23:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - See also: Ad hominem. Camann 19:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - See also: WP:SPA --Mitaphane _talk 22:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of Wikipedia articles does not include recreating the experience of playing a videogame (or reading/viewing/experiencing any creative work). The immersive nature of Myst games may be worth mentioning and analyzing, but articles should make no attempt to recreate that immersion; in fact, they should do the opposite by analyzing them as works of fiction. Ultimately, readers potentially confusing fiction and reality is not the issue; articles from an out-of-universe perspective are much more interesting and valuable to readers, when done right.--ragesoss 17:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ragesoss has it in one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may be the case that the template should be replaced with a better system, such as what is described above, but until such changes are made on a universal level, I see no point in deleting the template. If we delete it, all that would be different would be that the template in question would be replaced with a different template. What's the point in that? Maratanos 21:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree -- if it were deleted, then what would happen would be a push to improve the articles so that they make the fact/fiction issue clear. And I took a look at some of the articles, like Gemedet -- they really need some work. --^hello,gadr e n 22:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to {{in-universe}}, a generic template already in use that can be used for all fiction-treated-as-fact articles, no need for individual ones per videogame. Catherine breillat 23:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per Catherine, Ragesoss and Ned Scott. JoshuaZ 20:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ^Blank ^Verse 21:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The template is a handsome one and greatly assists navigation. I would be lost without it. What is in question is the way fact/fiction is dealt with and not the template itself. I am surprised tfd is used to force change rather than polite discussion on talk pages. I deplore misuse of tfd. My recommendation would be to reword the articles so that all fiction is talked about as if it was fiction, then remove the header. (There are books such as Jostein Gaarder's "Vita Brevis" that treats fiction as if it were fact....but that is a literary device that Dan Brown got a lot a flak for. You cannot use such literary devices in an encyclopedia. Please reword the articles.)bunix 22:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But we already have a template that does this, {{in-universe}}. If this template stays it should become somewhat of a cleanup template, in that it will say the same thing, but also add something like ".. and should be rewritten blah blah see WP:WAF" etc. Right now it makes it sound that this is an appropriate way to write an article. -- Ned Scott 02:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{in-universe}}. --ais523 12:08, 14 September 2006 (U T C)

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 page.