Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 October 4

< October 3	October 5 >

October 4 edit

Template:TeenMania 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) 04:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Navbox linking to only 3 articles. Not everything needs a navbox.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete after adding links to the see also section, if necessary. Frietjes (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2012 (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 Judge Dredd book 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) 04:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Judge Dredd book (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox book}}. Only 18 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: 1. This infobox has parameters which are not in {{Infobox book}}, and which are relevant to this series of books but not to others. 2. Is there a minimum number of tranclusions stated in Wikipedia's deletion policy? I can't find one. 18 seems reasonable. Richard75 (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which parameters, and why are they needed? If needed, could they not be in {{Infobox book}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One parameter, "year," which displays the year in which the novel is set, which readers may find of interest since Judge Dredd stories are not all set in the same year but in different years (it's an ongoing series in which a year passes in the series as each year passes in real life or in real time). This parameter therefore enables readers to see where each novel "fits" in relation to other stories (whether they be other novels or comic stories). I don't know whether such a parameter would be welcome in {{Infobox book}}, since most other series of novels don't generally invest as much effort in maintaining a coherent chronology. Richard75 (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The specific chronology of a book series can be established in the article prose: it is not appropriate for the infobox as it pertains solely to the fictional universe. As such, the rationale for maintaining this as a separate fork is weak. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note {{Infobox Judgedreddbook}}, which Richard appears to have worked on before starting afresh. In the event that this template is not deleted, these need histmerged. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the whole point of an Infobox to have certain information in a place which is easy to find at a glance without having to search the article prose for it? Richard75 (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specific pieces of pertinent comparative information of note to a general audience, yes. Not fictional chronological data which is largely of no import outwith the plot section of the article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, infoboxes shouldn't really contain in-universe information. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge Material covered by regular book infobox.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacement. the "year" information can be covered by a note in the "subject" field. Frietjes (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2012 (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 Fighting Fantasy book 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) 04:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Fighting Fantasy book (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox book}}. Only 8 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: 1. Many of these books have been published twice, by different publishers, and {{Infobox book}} does not allow for this in its parameters (this infobox does). 2. The number of transclusions does not matter, since there are over 70 books in the Fighting Fantasy series and so the number of articles using this infobox may grow over time. Richard75 (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. If this is needed, why could it not be added to {{Infobox book}}? 2. 70 is still a small number, and does not in itself warrant a separate infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it could be, I'll have a look. Richard75 (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested the idea here: Template talk:Infobox book#Proposed new parameter: Publisher2. Will see what happens. Richard75 (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion to merge the additional details here to the parent template is sound, as I very much doubt that a change of publisher is important only in the context of a particular line of adventure game books. I've added it to the parent template. We therefore don't need to maintain this as a standalone fork. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge Material covered by regular book infobox--GrapedApe (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, after making it possible to use {{infobox book}} as a child infobox, to cover the duplicate publication information in a clean way. Frietjes (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2012 (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.