Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 13

< September 12	September 14 >

September 13

Template:Infobox royal house

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 September 22. Primefac (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox_royal_house (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox_noble_house (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

Template:Infobox adult biography

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).

The result of the discussion was redirect to Template:Infobox person. There is a majority of support for not including the "number of films" parameter, and as the template is a wrapper already that means that redirection is all that is necessary. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox adult biography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox person (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox adult biography with Template:Infobox person.
per WP:INFOCOL and MOS:IB. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Functionally, the adult biography template is essentially Infobox person with one field added (number_of_films). If that field can be supported, a merge should be uncontroversial. That said, documentation with the most used fields is the biggest issue. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment, the number of films could be listed under |notable_works= or |known_for=. I don't think we need to add more parameters to {{infobox person}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the merge; the field "number_of_films" is pretty pointless, as the actors / filmmakers can put out dozens if not hundreds. It does not make the subject notable, and the number is no longer considered in the deletion discussions, for example. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The 'number of films' parameter needs manual updating, which sometimes might take a while to reflect the true amount of porn films one actor/actress did. It's not of much use. 81.106.34.193 (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC) (as User:My name is not dave)[reply]
Support, including the fact that we can lose the useless |number_of_films=. If we don't need that data for all actors, we don't need to for one genre of them. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The number of films is a good article content item. No need for it in the infobox. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 03:31, 22 September 2017 (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).