Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 22

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< November 21 November 23 >

November 22

edit

Template:Hollywoodandvine.com/beachboys

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) 00:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hollywoodandvine.com/beachboys (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unusued, possible test page, no possible usage GlassCobra 14:51, 22 November 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:Clique Girlz

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. Wizardman 19:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Clique Girlz (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Minor band, not enough links to justify a template. GlassCobra 13:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only a few links, so it doesn't assist with navigation. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:39, 30 November 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:Saw Fictional Chronology

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. Rather than being policy-based, the discussion focuses on whether or not the template is necessary or useful for understanding of the topic in articles--a matter of opinion. While there are two keeps, those arguing that they are not necessary seem to me to be a large enough majority to be declared a consensus. delldot ∇. 23:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Saw Fictional Chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Entirely redundant. The chronology of the films exists on the Saw main template which is at the bottom of all saw related pages, there is no point to this template. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional chronology
in Metal Gear
  • Keep: The series template only shows the films from one-to-six order with the other story media in other sections of the template, making it an extremely poor representation of the chronology. Seeing as how Saw: Rebirth takes place before Saw (which was released later) and that Saw: The Video Game takes place between Saw and Saw II, even though it was released right before Saw VI. Then there's the short film which sits next to Saw chronologically because they describe the same story. Finally, the fact that Saw III and Saw IV occur at the same time chronologically makes this even more mixed up. If this was a confusing paragraph to read, it was meant to. That is because that exact template is the only simple way to accurately show the chronology of the Saw series. This all results in a simple template that belongs in the plot sections of all story canon media to show where they occur as readers browse the plot sections of Saw related articles. This is nearly identical to the Metal Gear Solid series chronology template, seen to the right, that has games set in separate storylines and formats, which makes the template the best way to show this. Basically, the series template at the bottom is an inadequate chronological display as it is not just for the films, but all Saw media and the films are mixed up chronologically as well, only this template can easily describe chronology, a key element of the Saw franchise, to readers. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which would be fine were it not for the fact that sections of Saw IV happen before Saw, that Saw V features a scene from Saw and Saw VI has scenes from Saw III. The films are inter mingled and this template serves no useful purpose other than to list films which are already in order. This is not a series with prequels and sequels, each film moves forward, however incrementally, from the last and after Saw III they all feature flashback to previous films. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, flashbacks do occur in nearly every film that are spread throughout the series and in between their plots, but the current timeline in which the films take place in are represented on the template completely and purposefully. The flashbacks only supplement the sequences actively happening and do not reflect the main timeline of the film. Think about it, most of Saw (2004 film) is a flashback explaining background on Gordon and Adam; Saw II is largely a flashback on the nerve gas house (daniels trap); Saw III reflects on past traps and Jigsaw's and Amanda's past; Saw IV deeply details Jigsaw's origins and motives; Saw V details how Hoffman met Jigsaw and became his apprentice; and Saw VI details Jigsaw's connection to William Eastion. None of these flashbacks are stories of their own but give insight to the current timeline, which is the entire purpose of the story and, more importantly, the plot sections of the Saw articles, which only briefly tell the key points of the flashbacks. So, besides the fact that storylining every single scenes timeline would be impossible, it is irrelevant as only the current events are the focus. As these aren't exactly linear though (like Saw: The Video Game between Saw and Saw II/ Saw III and Saw IV being concurrent), the template is the best and easiest way to show where they lie, an important piece of information. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fact that the series chronology goes: Saw → Saw II → Saw III &tc. is really, well, nearly self-evident. It's not like Star Wars where the movies were released waaaay out of order. The placement of video games, short films, and other miscellany is a matter for an article dedicated to that topic. Additionally, every article that uses this template also uses the template it is redundant to, the main Saw franchise footer. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 09:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But in fact it goes Saw → Saw II → (Saw III/SawIV) → Saw V → Saw VI which is still fairly explanatory but still mixed up enough to create confusion without clarification. Next, the game, comic, and short film matter because Saw is a franchise, which story elements are introduced in all mediums and forms, which is what is being demonstrated there. It is useful to put them in the template and the template is useful due to the extreme inorder of the films chronology. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but my point is that it's not Saw → Saw III → Saw II → Saw V or something. That III and IV are concurrent is minimally important. All of them -- game, comic, short, etc -- are included in the main footer template for the franchise, making this template entirely redundant. -- OldManInACoffeeCan (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC) (alt: Mukk)[reply]
  • Delete I think these boxes are not a good idea. The chronology of the story could more easily and better be expressed in a section of the main franchise article, no need to transclude a box by each plot summary (as what the Metal Gear series box does). hbdragon88 (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to the preceded_by and followed_by fields in the existing film infobox. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Except for one prequel comic book, there doesn't appear to be anything unusual about the order of the fictional chronology vs. the release sequence, so having a special template for it is redundant. If the creators start complicating thing with more prequels and inter-movie material, then a chronology template could be created when one becomes more relevant. --RL0919 (talk) 19:11, 30 November 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   Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 6#Template:Infobox Coronation Street character. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:42, 6 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]
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:PND-pure

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 per CSD T3 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PND-pure (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was just a test and never used. For links with PND use: Template:PND or Template:Normdaten. Kolja21 (talk) 09:47, 22 November 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_discussion/Log/2009_November_22&oldid=1089034974"