Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 6

< December 5	December 7 >

December 6 edit

Template:Trap The Drum Wonder 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) 22:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Trap The Drum Wonder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

User's personal NavBox. Prefferably Delete, though I wouldn't oppose userfying. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is seriously in question of deletion, I shall change it to 'User:Trap The Drum Wonder'. I took the idea from some other user, I thought it was a decent personal navigation box. TDW |talk 19:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Having a personal navbox is not an inherently bad idea, but it belongs in user space, not template space, as it has no usefulness for the general user population. --RL0919 (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfied. Discussion over. TDW |talk 15:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost. You should update your uses of the template to use the new page name. Then an admin can delete the unnecessary redirect from the old name. And, by the way, thanks for being cooperative about this. --RL0919 (talk) 15:58, 12 December 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 Coronation Street character 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. All instances to be replaced with {{infobox character}}. Shereth 17:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Coronation Street character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox character}} and {{Infobox soap character}}. This change show that clear. The template was in the past replaced by Infobox character in all related articles and re-created recently. Magioladitis (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm in the process of creating a full back-catalogue of characters for Coronation Street, and after getting inspiration from the template Infobox EastEnders character 2 I thought this new template would be an excellent way of getting the most basic information as possible in the public domain in the articles. There are a lot of things that Infobox soap character does not have, and as I am expanding the project (slowly I might add), I think the most popular drama in Britain well deserves a template of its own. I believe many fans would agree if asked. Ooh, Fruity 18:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of whether a series deserves its own template, but one of whether for some technical reason it needs one. IOW, whether another template can fulfil or be adapted to fulfil the same purpose. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Infobox soap character has all the appropriate information without making unnecessary long list of relatives which don't offer a short overview of the character. This subjet was discussed in WikiProjec Soap Opera in the past. Secondly, at the worst case EastEanders infoox could be used for Coronation characters with some modifications. Infoboxes are not a reward for goof soaps but a tool for writing good articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The template offers a basic information that readers may find helpful, some may visit wikipedia to find a quick simple fact out such as how two certain characters are related, this template is more diverse because you can click and find out without having to read through the rest of the articles contents.
The infobox is ancillary to, not a substitute for, the article. Deprecate in favour of one of the two templates above. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after replacing all transclusions by {{Infobox character}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with {{Infobox character}}. The basic information is all in the standard template, and this one just adds a lot of fields for tenuous fictional relationships (second cousin twice removed!). --RL0919 (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary template. ww2censor (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary. --Klein zach 05:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wait until completed. BTW, Species would be human, presumeably. Anyway, if this does get deleted, the Eastenders infobox(es) should go too. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on whether their wiki-sins are the same/comparable or not. Don't over-generalize. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: Use {{Infobox soap character}} or {{Infobox character}}, and stop adding nitpicky piles of fancruft. Encyclopedia readers (i.e., our readers, as opposed to Soap Opera Digest readers) do not care (enough if at all) about fictional relationships and the like for such detailia to need specialized parameters in a character infobox. Having them there is placing undue weight on indiscriminate and in-universe data of a totally trivial nature. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:34, 9 December 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:PageRefurb 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge Unnecessary and less used duplicate of {{Inuse}} ~~and/or {{Underconstruction}}~~. Cybercobra (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Inuse template. I think that the time limit on the template is useful, so I would support merging that into the template as it gives a time to when the template can be removed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Kevin Rutherford. --Klein zach 05:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Agree that it is redundant in nature, but it has reusable code in it that's worth porting to {{Inuse}} and documenting there. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:18, 9 December 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.