Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 31

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 August 31)
< August 30 September 1 >

August 31 edit


Template:Infobox chef 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 keep for now, but explore the possibility of using {{infobox person}} as the backend and/or possibly merge depending on future consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox chef (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to and a near-duplication of {{Infobox person}}, to which the nominated template's few unique parameters (style, education, restaurants, prevrests, television) can be added, prior to redirection. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep These extra parameters are only important in this template but when added to infobox person they will for sure be used for other articles. Garion96 (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And why would that be a problem? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • One example. Planet Hollywood will be mentioned in Arnold Schwarzenegger's infobox with the restaurant parameter. Garion96 (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • And why would that be a problem? It's either pertinent to his life, in which case it should be included, or not, in which case consensus should be reached for its removal. {{Infobox person}} already ha a lot of optional parameters, which are not used in all cases; merely when appropriate. We don't need a new template, every time someone wants a new parameter or two. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well actually it should go in the infobox if it is the sort of thing people would look in the infobox for. Apparently circular argument I know. but no bearing on keep or delete the infobox. Rich Farmbrough, 04:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete and fully support this merge project with Infobox Person. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Merge cleverly or merge very cleverly. Here I mean
    • # Merge and redirect.
    • # Call person from chef using label/value parameters
    • # Call person from chef using a plugin template that handles the cheffy stuff.
  • Rich Farmbrough, 04:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep to keep things simple (and it would not really matter if someone used {{Infobox person}} for a chef). Thincat (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does having two templates, one a slightly modified subset of the other, keep things more simple than having just one? If someone uses Infobox person fr a chef, then it lacks the specific cheffy properties listed above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The extra parameters are not needed in a generic personal infobox. -DJSasso (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. GrooveDog (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most important parts of this template are the current restaurants, current works and awards; these aren't currently adequately catered for by {{infobox person}}. Need more work. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The proposal above is to add those fields to the generic person infobox. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • They may not be appropriate for the generic infobox in their current form. As I said, I'd like to see a concrete proposal on how this would be done before considering a merge: there does not seem to be any indication that new collapsible sections would be accepted in the generic template at this time, for a start. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then include them as non-collapsible. This is yet another example of behaviour which should be included, or not, on a generic basis across all biographical infoboxes. If, once they are added, there is consensus to make them collapsible; or not, then that will prevail. We shouldn't be keeping redundant templates, just to circumvent, or avoid debate about, such consensus. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I very much agree. However, TfD is not the ideal way to kickstart such a move, as the work required to get rid of this template is currently non-trivial. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Live version of template Sandbox version of template
Jamie Oliver
 
Jamie Oliver in Union Square in New York City
EducationWestminster Catering College
SpouseJuliette Norton
Culinary career
Cooking styleFresh and Organic
Current restaurant(s)
Television show(s)
 
{{Infobox chef2 <!-- for more information see [[:Template:Infobox Chef/doc]] -->
| name = Jamie Oliver
| image =Jamie Oliver retouched.jpg
| caption = Jamie Oliver in [[Union Square (New York City)|Union Square]] in [[New York City]]
| birthdate = {{birth date and age|1975|05|27|df=y}}
| birthplace = [[Clavering, Essex|Clavering]], [[Essex]], [[England]]
| deathdate = 
| deathplace = 
| spouse = Juliette Norton
| style = Fresh and [[Organic food|Organic]]
| education = Westminster Catering College
| restaurants = 
*[[Fifteen restaurants|Fifteen]]
**[[London]]
**[[Newquay]]
**[[Amsterdam]]
**[[Melbourne]]

*Jamie's Italian
**[[Oxford]]
**[[Bath, Somerset|Bath]]
**[[Kingston upon Thames|Kingston]]
**[[Brighton]]
**[[Canary Wharf, London|Canary Wharf]]
| television =
''[[Oliver's Twist]]''<br />
''[[Jamie's School Dinners]]''<br />
''[[Jamie's Great Italian Escape]]''<br />
''Naked Chef''<br />
''[[Jamie's Kitchen]]''<br />
''[[Jamie's Chef]]''<br />
''[[Jamie at Home]]''<br />
''[[Jamie's Fowl Dinners]]''<br />
''[[Jamie's Ministry of Food]]''<br />
''[[Jamie's American Road Trip]]''
}}

Here is Jamie with infobox chef and infobox chef2, which uses person/sandbox. This took me maybe 10 minutes, I would think whatever is required could be achieved with a little wrok and good will. Rich Farmbrough, 15:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment...
Something that bothers me is this quote from Andy: "This is yet another example of behaviour which should be included, or not, on a generic basis across all biographical infoboxes."
Frankly, this isn't the generic infobox. Unless there is something that can be shown that this type of formatting is not to be used in a specialty biography box, something that should be hashed out at the least at the Bio project. Without that, it sounds a lot like "Hang the fine tuning of this template, just replace it with the generic."
I'm sorry, but that's not a good reason. If Person had the fields prior to the creation of Chef, there would be an argument for redundancy. But if the people using Chef have placed into it specific things that are found relevant only to chefs and/or functions that enhance the use of the template, then it may just be the case that a focused infobox is proper for biographies of those in the specific profession.
As for the collapsible sections... It may be annoying but it does allow for compression of the infobox in cases where a long list of information is being included. Personally, I would have noted a limit on the number of restaurants and/or shows with a full list in the "See also" section, but I'm willing to defer to those actually using this template. - J Greb (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2009 (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:Dont Hangon 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 as G7 per creator below. ÷seresin 04:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dont Hangon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant (if speedy deletion wasn't supported by someone, it wouldn't have been tagged) and potentially harmful template. Speedy deletion is not meant to be decided by the number of pro- and anti-deletion templates that get tacked onto the page, but rather the decision is meant to be based on whether the article meets the speedy deletion criteria. The existing templates are adequate for this; this template serves no purpose, but could potentially be abused and confuse users inexperienced with the speedy deletion process. Furthermore, the author seems to realize that the template shouldn't be used. --darolew (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apology I am so sorry for creating this template. I did not realize that it would be so poorly received. I should have discussed it before creating. I had thought this was a natural companion to prod2. So sorry! :( Basket of Puppies 21:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Unused. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Since the creator/sole editor seems to agree that it was a mistake, perhaps this one can itself be speedy-ed? --RL0919 (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be rather amusing ... I can see the transclusion of two deletion templates onto a deletion template leading to confusion for the admins patrolling CSD at the time. It took me a minute to figure out what the story was even just the way it is now. Too bad we couldn't transclude the template onto itself too; this is the very type of situation it was created for! -- Soap Talk/Contributions 04:04, 1 September 2009 (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:Infobox comics creator 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 keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox comics creator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to and a near-duplication of {{Infobox person}}, to which the nominated template's few unique parameters can be added. Lacks some of {{Infobox person}}'s generic fields. A suitably selective blank of the merged template can be included on the WikiProject Comics page. Prior discussion was inconclusive. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Currently the template does have functionality other than what is in the generic template. This is without the contentious issues re DEFAULTSORT and {{Lifetime}}. - J Greb (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still haven't conclude what we should do. I am only certain that we should not use DEFAULTSORT and Lifetime in infoboxes. So if this template is kept these entries have to be deleted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've gone round and round on that on the template's talk. It still stands that 1) a guideline or consensus needs to be cited that DS doesn't go into templates (this would also pull it out of Lifetime) 2) a similar guideline needs to be pointed to showing the inclusion of Lifetime is a no go. To date, neither has surfaced. - J Greb (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need a policy to fix something that is broken. Even with the supposedly "well known" {{Lifetime}} there are thousands of articles that have an additional DEFAULTSORT, we could end up with many on a page, it is such a problem that we have resorted to defacing articles with Warning: Default sort key "$2" overrides earlier default sort key "$1".. An infobox is for information, not categorisation or sorting, it is not a question of trying to stop a Good Idea [tm], it is that mixing the functionality makes for suprises. And precisely this sort of argument supports merging the biog-infoboxen. It would be simple, if it was so decided, to add the birth and death categories to Infobox Person, and have it applied to all infoboxed biographies, either if we only had that box, or if the core functionality at least resided there. Rich Farmbrough, 23:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Part of the problem though is that I don't think I've ever seen that red warning, large or small, pop up. Though... yup (just checked something)... Redundancy doesn't trigger it. That is, if the sortkey and the DS are the same, the 2nd or later DS seem to be ignored. I can see where the potential for the editor adding/fleshing out the 'box not picking the same format as the DS 'bot can cause a minor problem. - J Greb (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they need to actually conflict. It might become extremely difficult to locate a conflict though, that is the point. I see people adding lifetime and DEFAUTLSORT in the same edit. It would also mean there are at least three places to check when trying to sort out the DEFAULTSORTS for an article or group. Maybe someone would sneak it into persondata too, or a little template at the start {name|first=joe|second=smith}, etc. etc... Rich Farmbrough, 05:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
IIUC, the microdata is generally assumed to be in all variations of the Bio infoboxes, so that may be a real stretch.
As for the DS conflict... there is Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts. Which should give a good warning when 2 or more conflicting DSes are on a page. Currently 16 page are listed there, none of which are articles. And all things considered, I'd take that as an indication that this infobox isn't creating the catastrophe that you are pointing to. - J Greb (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know how how many Rich Farmbrough, 06:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Care to clarify?
Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts as of right no hold 25 items, 5 are articles, 1 (John Freeman (editor)) of which uses this template. (Side note... just wondering, but shouldn't your AWB run [1] have eliminated the dab in the DS instead of just capitalizing it?
No, becasue
  1. It would be an unwarranted assumption that "something in brackets" = disambiguation (although many do make that assumption
  2. I wasn't trying to fix all the DEFAULTSORTS just to remove duplicates
  3. There is a good case for having disambiguators in the sort key else they come in a random order:
    1. Jason Smith (ice hockey)
    2. Jason Smith (actor)
    3. Jason Smith (baseball)
    4. Jason Smith (rugby league)
    5. Jason Smith (sports radio personality)
    6. Jason Smith (snowboarder)
    7. Jason Smith (Australian basketball)
    8. Jason Smith (American basketball)
    9. Jason Smith (soccer)
    10. Jason Smith (American football)
    11. Jason Smith (curler)
John Freeman is less of a problem since there are, at the moment only two of him. But we want a generic solution so that people don't have to do it. Rich Farmbrough, 05:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
There are very, very few categories which will have even two of the Jason Smiths you list, so the "random order" is not a problem (in general, apart from cat:living people, which is mainly a maintenance category anyway). Fram (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the article has been fixed.)
I.E. the cats have been subsumed into the infobox. But how is one to know which cats? There is no gender in the infobox so Female American artist can't be generated, nor trangendered artist etc. Unless editing is limited to a clique of specialists people will be at sea as to which categories they should add explicitly - if they even know that some are hidden. It is making work of taking the existing categories out of the articles, and regularly going though for new ones that have grown there, instead of keeping to the simple methods where the only article categories that are included by template are maintenance ones. Rich Farmbrough, 05:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Category:Comics creator pop is a tracking cat based on this template and currently holds 1583 articles.
I was aware of comics creator pop, what I didn't realise is that there are a good dozen other tracking categories arising from this and other comics templates. Probably 10% of all tracking categories... Is this a good thing? I don't know but I doubt it. Rich Farmbrough, 05:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Now then, which how many is in question? - J Greb (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jim cleans them up on a daily basis. Moreover people will try and fix them when they see the error message - they may give up editing an article. I came across the fact that this template includes DEFAULTSORT by generating a list of artticles containing BOTH lifetime AND defaultsort -- in other words conflict fodder. This infobox accounts for about 1/3 of them - as I noted elsewhere almost all the articles (1500 of 1580) have DEFAULTSORT or Lifetime (or of course both) so adding it is redundant. Rich Farmbrough, 04:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • What functionality? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lets see...
        Use of {{Birth date}}, {{Birth date and age}}, {{Death date}}, and {{Death date and age}} templates.
        The use of "tic" fields to generate the "Area(s)" information so that, at least at a basic level, it's consistent across the articles.
        The same "tic" fields and "nationality" generating inclusion in appropriate categories.
        And there is what Hiding points out below - adding the "generic" fields invites invasive, irrelevant information. Stuff that is on its face blatant, or darn close to, BLP vio for non-celebs. We do not need, nor should we want information such as: residence; home_town; salary; networth; height; weight; religion; spouse; partner; children; parents; or relations incorporated into biographies of private individuals. Frankly, those should not be available in a base line, generic infobox. Even with celebrities, professional athletes, politicians and the like some of those fields are none of our business and should only exist on specialized infoboxes for the professions where they are immediately relevant. - J Greb (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no reason that a suitable cut and paste version for a given field can't be used. Rich Farmbrough, 05:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
          • A few things things Rich:
            1. Are you suggesting moving the sections in question from this template to the "one for all persons" offered by Andy?
              • No if you look at my !vote below you will see what I suggest. That is the core functions stay at person, and the specialist ones go in a plug-in template. Rich Farmbrough, 05:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
            2. If not, are you willing to go through the 1500+ articles to make damn sure that all of the standing cats are still there after the "move"?
              • Yes. It would help if you stopped deleting the explicit categories though. Rich Farmbrough, 05:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
            3. That still doesn't avoid the "beans" situation of inappropriate fields being added. That is unless the list of fields I pointed to are being removed from the "one for all persons" template.
              • See my answer to 1 above. Since there are (and would probably continue to be) free-from fields it doesn't entirely preclude it, but it would makeit unlikely. Rich Farmbrough, 05:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
          - J Greb (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I answered this, I am sure, probably sitting in an unclosed tab somewhere.... So I have done a point by point answer above. Rich Farmbrough, 05:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
              • Here's the non-redundant textform that unclosed tab.
              • I'm suggesting that as most templates have, there can be a blank copy of the template: whether this is
{{Infobox person
| name       = 
| paper used =
| ....

or 

{{Infobox comics creator
| name       = 
| paper used =
| ....

(with comics creator being a redirect to, or an instance of person) is not germane to that point.

There are some great ideas in this template, BLP pop for example, if they are useful they would be better in Infobox Person, if not, better got rid of completely.
Rich Farmbrough, 22:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks... so that clarifies your position to "If it isn't in Infobox person it isn't worth being there." That's very helpful.
Sarcasm is supposed to be difficult in text. And the first paragraph seems to deliberately misunderstand me. You could say, provided you awere carteful how yiou iunderstood it, "If it isn't worth being in Infobox person it isn't worth being there." Rich Farmbrough, 09:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
And frankly, IF the template was just using the all of the exact same fields and limited to the functions of Person, merging would make sense. As it stands, that "if" doesn't exists and is likely to never exist.
Oh... and a side note: the BLP pop would likely need another parameter added if you plunk it into Person. The reason it went in was an idea raised within the Comics project. It's a tool to allow that project to have a list of BLPs specifically related to the project so the the Creators Work Group there could keep an extra eye on them. That gets shot to pieces if a generic BLP pop replaces it... come to think about it wouldn't that be Category:Living people? - J Greb (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. If we want to maintain BLP cats for various groups it's trivial to code them #ifexist:Category:BLP pop {{{type|}}} . Rich Farmbrough, 09:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
        • Aside from the issues raised by Rich; why does this template need different date parameters to all the other biographical infoboxes? How does such non-standard behaviour help our editors? As for fields like "religion" or "spouse", these may be relevant for some comic book creators (if they produce comics about biblical themes, or have a famous spouse, for example); and should be available in those cases. In cases where they are not relevant, they can be omitted, just as they are for the many instances of Infobox person in which they are not relevant (I'm sure there's a policy discounting such slippery-slope or unsubstantiated "it'll end in tears" arguments, but can't recall where it is). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • re dates: As it stands the template is set up to use the 4 templates listed under your question of "What functionality?" Last I checked those only work with the 4 digit year, day, and numeric month as separate fields.
            • There are more subtle version available now that take most anything. Rich Farmbrough, 05:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
          • As for the inappropriate fields... Frankly I'm going on the general BLP mindset. That amounts to "Remove the unsourced and the irrelevant, period." I'm one of those that read that as not putting into use templates that encourage inclusion of the inappropriate information. In general, the fields I listed are not relevant to, and would be considered BPL violations on most general biographies. I'd rather not bait the inclusion instead of having to constantly remove the inappropriate use. - J Greb (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Virtually every other biographical infobox is capable of - and does - tale those templates as input, without requiring the separate year, month and date fields used, irregularly, by the template under discussion. I note that you did not answer my question - "How does such non-standard behaviour help our editors?" And your conclusions about "the general BLP mindset" are not supported by the presence of the very fields you list, in Infobox person. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Step back and look at it Andy. Yes, that set of templates can be entered as "birthdate" or "deathdate" on most of the 'boxes. In this case the 'box coding is set up to automatically fill in the appropriate template. Different means,same end. The only difference is that in this case you don't have to fumble through finding/remembering/adding the secondary template call. Fill the DoB and/or DoD fields and away you go.
                This almost reads like the use of fields to make the inclusion of the template easier is being derided because it isn't compatible with the generic infobox template.
                As for the fields in Person...
                Andy, right now it would be considered a pointed edit, but I'm damn tempted to pull them as an editor that finds they run counter to BLP. They do not belong in a general template. They never should have been added to a general template. They should only be part of infoboxes for biographies where the information is immediately relevant. Consolidation be damned. Clear enough? - J Greb (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've already taken a good look at this, before raising the matter, so please start to assume good faith. You assert that your preferred, non-standard, method, used in this template alone, is "easier"; so how come it's not been adopted elsewhere? Why don't you propose it for widespread adoption, starting with Infobox person? The fields currently in that infobox, which you deride, are there by consensus, following long debate. feel free to propose their removal at any point. And yes, your position is quite clear; and perhaps explains why you have still yet to answer my question: "How does such non-standard behaviour help our editors?" Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These extra parameters are only important in this template but when added to infobox person they will for sure be used for other articles. Defaultsort and lifetime however should go from this infobox. Garion96 (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? You are really worried that semone might use "pencil = HB" for Arnold ? But see my comments elsewhere, they do not need to be exposed. Rich Farmbrough, 05:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - Per J Greb and Garion96. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a disagreement about the sortkey/dib/dod parameters. What is your opinion, if I may ask? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with Garion that there's little need to add the extra parameters to {{Infobox person}}, since they are not necessary but adding them will encourage their usage, and such usage would not enhance Wikipedia. I defer to J Greb regarding the issue of the default sort issue. Hiding T 23:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, following J Greb and Garion - there do seem to be concerns but these would be better thrashed out on the template's talk page (I'm unsure how this has got to a merge and then a deletion). Part of the problem though is that some people/robots seem to want to be able to edit a page without reading it and that seems awfully unwise. we could , I assume hardcode the sorting into the categories (rather than create a {{lifetime}} tag) which would prevent any clashes but it would still mean editors need to quickly scan a page before tagging it. Anyway J Greb is the expert on this and I'm sure some kind of compromise can be reached over the lifetime issue if it is really a problem. (Emperor (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge or Merge cleverly or merge very cleverly. Here I mean
    • # Merge and redirect.
    • # Call person from comics using label/value parameters
    • # Call person from comics using a plugin template that handles the comicy stuff.
  • Rich Farmbrough, 05:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - Per J Greb and Garion96. Trigaranus (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per much of above. -DJSasso (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless we want to rase questions about {{Infobox writer}} or {{Infobox artist}} Doodle77 (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ? Rich Farmbrough, 06:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
      • Not quite. More asking "Are we moving to one and only one infobox for biographies?" If so, why aren't we doing it in one go? - J Greb (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Has anyone said we are? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Considering the arguments here and with Chef above, among them the idea of just adding the fields to Person, it is a reasonable conclusion that a full collapse could be done, and that may be where we're headed. - J Greb (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'll take that as a "no", then. And it would be an entitirely false and unwarranted conclusion. Please try to avoid spreading FUD. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • So we're not looking to collapse all infoboxes then? Just for clarity. Reading through the debate, Rich Farmbrough raised the point about collapsing all biog infoboxes, so maybe you need to retract your assumption that no-one raised the point, and your assertion regarding FUD, unless of course, your intention is to spread FUD? Hiding T 08:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Everything I have said on that matter is fully correct. It is you who are falsely assuming and imagining. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Can other people check that Rich states above "precisely this sort of argument supports merging the biog-infoboxen" because Andy is asserting that I have imagined that. Cheers, Hiding T 09:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comics Pro Infobox. It provides specificity and relevant detail. -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You guys may want to fix up the link to this discussion built into the template currently. It doesn't specifically link to this discussion (only links to the page) and thus can be terribly confusing as to what template it is actually referring to. If you go to Rumiko Takahashi for instance, it almost looks like it is referring to the nihongo template. Derekloffin (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: We had this discussion last year as well, started by the same editor, on Template talk:Infobox comics creator#Merge into Infobox Person (yes, then it was a merge, now it's a delete, but I see little difference in what is proposed). The same arguments still apply. Infobox person should only be used in those cases where no specific infobox exists: going the other way is counterproductive. Most of the fields in "person" are of no use for comics creators (opponents? boards? callsign? weight?), while none of the comics specific fields are included. Merging all these infoboxes together (or even only these two) makes things less easy to use for most editors. Specific problems with this infobox can be discussed on its talk page, but are no reason to delete it. Fram (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • When that discussion was closed, in January 2009, we failed to achieve a consensus, and a recommendation to reopen after six months or so was made; which I have duly done, by way of this proposal. The reasons to delete this template are as valid now as they were then; indeed more so, given the non-standard behaviour introduced in the interim. You repeat the canard about irrelevant fields, selectively choosing the most obscure (and do you really assert that no comic creator has ever reached board level of their company?) and ignoring the more relevant, and ignoring the rebuttal to that, which I have posted above. This proposal clearly includes the addition of the more specific fields you mention, to the generic person template. Your assertion that merging would "make things easy" is without foundation. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reasons are as invalid as they were then, and your rebuttal was not ignored, it just was utterly unconvincing. If your other proposals on this page would be accepted, we get a template with even more totally unrelated fields (prevrests?). As for selectively choosing the most obscure irrelevant fields, I could have added title, term, networth, body_discovered, ... My assertion that merging would make things less easy (to use the correct quote) is founded on my experience in writing articles and using infoboxes: the more fields one has to go through and decipher (prevrests is obvious in infobox chef, not so in infobox person), the harder it gets to use it efficiently and correctly. Fram (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2009 (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:Big 5 Basketball Venues 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) 16:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Big 5 Basketball Venues (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is an unnecessary and redundant template because Template:Big 5 contains not only the basketball venues, but also much more Philadelphia Big 5-related articles as well. The TfD has been deprecated by the more complete template just described. Jrcla2 talk 20:11, 31 August 2009 (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.

Compass-table + GeoCompass 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 merge and delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Compass-table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:GeoCompass (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Both redundant to {{Geographic Location}} to which they should be redirected/ merged. Each is reportedly used <150 times, compared to 6,000+ for {{Geographic Location}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:24, 31 August 2009 (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:Lolblock 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 userfy Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lolblock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
 
Keep or userfy. Durova306 23:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Deletion policy, this is a "Redundant or otherwise useless templates" which should never be used in any respect. As funny/unfunny as it is, it is unfortunately innapropriate. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (as creator) Humourous page, no worse than any of the other things we use for humour. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 202 FCs served 09:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Humorous keep. Aww, we never have any fun around here ;) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the humor tag helps - it's obviously not a good template to use for your everyday block, but I'm sure there's the odd situation where it might be apropos and amusing for all involved.. One day, perhaps even April Fools Day, I will find the vandal to whom that template applies, and on that day I do intend to use it. ~ mazca talk 10:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can has Keep? per Mazca. Black Kite
  • Keep Too funny to delete and any admin stupi enough to use it deserves anything they get. Needs a better cat image though Spartaz Humbug! 12:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep yes, it "should never be used" but it is already tagged as something kept because it is humorous. This is not a template intended to be used to actually inform anyone that they have been blocked, so there is no real reason it should be deleted. Support editing the template for a better cat picture. The Seeker 4 Talk 13:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No valid rationale to delete. We can do with some humor. Pmlineditor  Talk 13:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plz to haz keepz nao, kthnxbai It's got a humor tag on it... and it's not really intended to notify anyone. Until It Sleeps Wake me   13:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and move to creator's userpage. –blurpeace (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not funny. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, humorous. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as anyone could just manually create the same thing anyway. Userfication might be a good idea though. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 14:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can has keep? I honestly LOL'd when I saw this. I think we can keep something funny like this while maintaining decorum. Besides, I'd love to use it on a chronic vandal, but that's a discussion for another day. PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can haz keep too? - Definitely awesome! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 14:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just a harmless joke. Delete any admins using it seriously. ;) Mangojuicetalk 15:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikipedia:Template:Lolblock - this shouldn't be used as a template. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Teh humorz, ur doin it rite; and this can be used as a honeypot to catch the admins with really, really bad judgment.  :-) — Coren (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to user space this may be lol funny but, does not need to be in the template namespace. it will be just as humorous in the userspace. Cocoaguy ここがいいcontribstalk Review Me! 16:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this can go in the Wikipedia: namespace - a lot of pages in hthe Wikipedia: namespace are in Category:Wikipedia humor. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as rubbish a rationale as it is, this is harmless and no well-thinking admin is going to use it. But seriously, have a bit more maturity at this TfD please.  GARDEN  19:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Not something that should be in the template namespace. — MusicMaker5376 20:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or userfy. Is funny. Unless some schmuck actually slaps it on a page as part of a serious ban -- in which case it should be subst'd onto that schmuck's page then deleted. -- llywrch (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a joke. Grow a sense of humor. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepz Staxringold talkcontribs 23:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can iz votin keepz for teh epic lulz Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 23:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as it is not being used for real blocks and is clearly marked as humor (both true as of today), I'm fine with keeping it. The occasional bit of humor in template-space doesn't cause any significant harm. --RL0919 (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify. Silliness is fine but let's keep it out of regular space. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seriously dudes, lighten up. McJEFF (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a social club. And delete the image used as a vote on this discussion also. 76.66.199.195 (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image used in this discussion is hosted at a different WMF project and cannot be deleted by local en:wiki discussion. Durova308 00:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userify. The possible use of it as an actual block would be very unsatisfactory. Though Coren and Mango's suggestion of keeping there, as way to remove any admin who actually does use it, does have some appeal. But I just don't trust us all to have the same sense of humor. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or userfy pro bono. Verbal chat 14:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, move to Wikipedia namespace, or add to a category "Templates not meant to be taken seriously" with documentation added like "do not use this on user or user talk pages unless you know the "victim" well enough to know he has a good sense of humor. Using this template against someone who doesn't laugh at it may be construed as a personal attack." — Preceding unsigned comment added by davidwr (talk • contribs) 21:42, 1 September 2009
  • I've been watching this since it was first announced on AN/I, and I seriously LOL every single time I see it. Everyone seems to have a clear understanding behind the limits of it's use as well, so: Keep, even if only through userfication. One alternative might be to work it onto WP:BLOCK, where it could potentially be a tension breaker.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or userify. Boo to the enforced faux professionalism. If it's all business, where's my check? Protonk (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or userfy, and make it clear that you're only allowed to use this thing permanently on user talk pages of admins who have been permanently banned for using this template. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This needs to be userfied. It's wholly inappropriate for templatespace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The template is completely innappropriate and should never be used on a blocked user- as such, it should not be retained. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can iz votin keepz per all above keep arguments. It's humorous and appropriate, has the {{humor}} and <noinclude> tags, keep. — Becksguy (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • iz it can be bjaodn tiem naow? (or whatever it is nowadays) Worth preserving for teh lulz. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • UzErfy and use on any admin that manages to block him/herself! Skier Dude (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Userify If anyone actually abuses it, that's a behavioral issue. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy. Blocked users rarely find their situation funny.  Sandstein  12:01, 6 September 2009 (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:Miss Intercontinental 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 Speedy Delete G8 - was missed when deleting the other dependent pages. Doesn't need a TFD. Black Kite 10:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Miss Intercontinental (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

see, Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_August_22#Template:Miss_Tourism_Queen_International and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Intercontinental. スマスリク (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2009 (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_deletion/Log/2009_August_31&oldid=1142563359"